Allahabad High Court
Satya Narain And Others vs D.D.C. & Others on 26 September, 2019
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 7 Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 471 of 1996 Petitioner :- Satya Narain And Others Respondent :- D.D.C. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.S.Sahai,U.S. Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deepak Tiwari,Dinesh Chandra Shukla,Nirmal Kumar Tewari,Q.M.Haq,Ravindra Kumar Singh,Shikha Sinha,Sunil Kumar Singh Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard.
This writ petition was filed in the year 1996 challenging an order dated 11.09.1996 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1953') by which he ordered the deletion of the entry in favour of the petitioners in respect of then existing Khata No.46 on the ground that no such order dated 04.10.1978 had been passed in the mutation proceeding and that it was a fabricated order.
During pendency of this writ petition an interim order has been operating by which the impugned order was stayed.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that a sale deed was executed by opposite party no. 2 in favour of the petitioners on 13.07.1978 whereupon mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1901') were initiated which resulted in passing of an order dated 04.10.1978 by the Competent Authority for mutating the name of the petitioners in respect of the Khata in question. Accordingly, an entry was made in the Khatauni of 1386 Fasli, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.1 which corresponds to the year 1979. Thereafter, the consolidation operations commenced sometimes in the early 1990 and the opposite party no. 2 herein filed an objection under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 in respect of the same Khata and the name of the petitioners as recorded in respect thereof in the basic year Khatauni. During pendency of the objections the opposite party no. 2, also filed an application before the Chief Revenue Officer for correction of records in respect of the same Khata on the same ground that the order dated 04.10.1978 was fraudulent. The Chief Revenue Officer got some inquiries conducted and ultimately the report came that the Village was under consolidation operation, therefore, the matter was referred to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation who in turn referred it to the Deputy Director, Consolidation.
The counsel for the petitioners says that they were never heard prior to the reference being sent to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He says that once the objections have been filed under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953, then, there is no way that in respect of the same dispute a reference could have been prepared and decided separately. He also informs that in fact, the proceedings under section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 initiated by opposite party no. 2 have been dismissed for want of prosecution on 02.11.2007, a fact which is being denied by the counsel for opposite parties who says that it is the transfer application filed by the petitioners which was dismissed for want of prosecution. However, he admits to the fact that the objections were never decided on merit and in fact the files are not traceable.
It is also the contention of Shri Nirmal Tiwari that successive inquiry reports have found that the entry based on the order dated 04.10.1978 was fraudulent and in fact such an order does not exist, therefore, no interference should be made by this Court with the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation. However, on being confronted as to how this procedure could have been adopted by way of a reference under Section 48(3) of the Act, 1953 when in respect of the same dispute the proceedings under Section 9-A(2) were pending he fairly stated that normally this should not have been done.
As regards the allegation of fraud this would have to be considered and decided after issues are framed in this regard and evidence is led, this Court is of the view that the proceedings under Section 48(3) of the Act, 1953 in respect of the same dispute regarding which proceedings under Section 9-A(2) were pending, was not justified. The issues should have been allowed to be decided in proceedings under Section 9-A(2), therefore, without adjudicating the merits of the claim of the petitioner and the counter claim of opposite party no.2, the Court quashes the order dated 11.09.1996 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Court further orders that the proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 initiated by opposite party no.2 which were registered as Case No.5971 in which an order was passed on 15.04.1994 fixing 13.05.1994 for framing of issues shall stand revived and shall now be proceeded with by the Consolidation Officer for deciding the dispute pertaining to the rights and interests of the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953. Any material collected by the Revenue Authorities or the Consolidation Authorities with regard to the validity of the order dated 04.10.1978 shall be open for consideration in these proceedings, on being adduced, subject to an opportunity to the respective parties to lead evidence in rebuttal and after providing the adverse material to them, on such evidence being admissible and relevant as per the Indian Evidence Act.
Considering the chequered history of the case and the issues involved it is provided that the petitioners and opposite party no. 2/1 to 2/4 shall appear before the Consolidation Officer on 01.11.2019. The Consolidation Officer shall issue notice to opposite party no. 3. Thereafter, the proceedings shall be held as aforesaid and shall be disposed of in accordance with law within a period of one year i.e. by 01.11.2020. The Consolidation Officer shall try to see the veracity of the claims of the rival parties independent of the revenue reports also, unless they are adduced in evidence and found relevant, admissible and credible as already stated.
Till such disposal of the proceedings status quo shall be maintained by the parties with regard to entries in the revenue records, possession of the land in dispute, and none of them shall alienate the same.
It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the existence, validity of the order dated 04.10.1978 nor of the rights of the respective parties on merits in respect of the of the land in question.
The certified copies of the documents filed before this Court by the respective parties shall be returned as per the Rules of the Court but only after keeping attested photocopies of the same on the records of this writ petition.
With these observations, the writ petition is allowed in part.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 R.K.P.