HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?A.F.R. Court No. - 5 Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 567 of 2015 Petitioner :- Nand Lal Respondent :- Deputy Director Consolidation Distt Hardoi And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Ankit Kumar Singh,Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Yogendra Nath Yadav Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
(Oral order) The legal question involved in this writ petition, which requires consideration is whether consolidation authorities during consolidation proceedings have any power or authority to decide that a person is entitled to get the benefit of Section 122-B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and accordingly confer such benefit upon him.
Notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Mr. Yogendra Nath Yadav, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no.6.
For the orders proposed, there is no need to issue notice to opposite parties no.3 to 5, as such, notice to opposite parties no.3 to 5 have been dispensed with.
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 29.5.2015, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi in Revision No.188/14-15 filed under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act and the order dated 3.10.2012 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation in Appeal No.243, under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act, as contained in Annexures-1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition.
As per given facts of the case in the writ petition when the consolidation proceedings were initiated in the village in question, the petitioner had preferred objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act before the Consolidation Officer which was registered as Case No.466 TB. It was prayed that the petitioner may be declared as Asankramariya Bhumidhar under the provisions of Section 122-B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act regarding Gatas No.526, 536, 538/1, 544 and 548 measuring area 6 biswa, 7 biswa, 3 biswa and 3 biswa respectively, over which the petitioner is allegedly in possession from the last several years.
Learned Consolidation Officer vide order dated 19.4.1996 had allowed the objection filed by the petitioner and had given benefit of Section 122-B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act to the petitioner as Asankramariya Bhumidhar over Gata No.526 Khata No.675 by deleting the entry Banjar and regarding Gata No.544 and 548 Khata No.671 by deleting the entry Prachin Parti. It is also stated that after approximately 8 years, father of opposite parties no.3 to 5 had preferred an appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation challenging the order dated 19.4.1996 claiming possession over the land in question. The said appeal was dismissed vide impugned order dated 3.10.2012, however, the order dated 19.4.1996 passed by the Consolidation Officer was set aside and land in question was directed to be recorded as 'Banjar' and 'Prachin Parti' in the revenue records. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved the petitioner had preferred revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act which has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in possession over the land in question from last 30 years and, as such, was entitled to get the benefit of Section 122-B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which was rightly given to him by the order of the Consolidation Officer. It is also submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sandila vide order dated 9.12.2005 had declared the petitioner as Sankramariya Bhumidhar under the provisions of Section 131 Kha of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The said order was never challenged in any court of law.
Submission is that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority has failed to properly consider the contentions raised by the petitioner as the revision preferred by the petitioner has been wrongly dismissed.
Learned Standing Counsel opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction or power to give benefit of Section 122-B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act while deciding the objection filed under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. He is not the competent authority to decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Section 122-B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or not. No competent authority has passed any order giving benefit of Section 122-B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in favour of the petitioner, as such, the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was patently erroneous, wrong and illegal. The appellate authority has rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondents. The revisional authority has also rightly dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner.
I have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records.
Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act relates to the power of Land Management Committee and the Collector which provides that where any property vested under the provisions of this Act in a Gaon Sabha or a local authority is damaged or misappropriated or where any Gaon Sabha or local authority is entitled to take or retain possession of any land under the provisions of this Act and such land is occupied otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Land Management Committee or local authority, as the case may be, shall inform the Assistant Collector concerned in the manner prescribed and the proceedings shall be held for dispossession from the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha.
Section 122-B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is in fact a proviso to Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, it provides that where any agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category is in occupation of the land veted in a Gaon Sabha under Section 117 having occupied it from before 13.05.2007 and the land so occupied does not exceed 1.26 hectares, then no action under this section shall be taken by the Land Management Committee or the Collector against such labourer and he shall be admitted as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of the land under Section 195.
The provisions of Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act clearly relates to powers of the Land Management Committee and the Collector for the purpose of dispossession of unauthorized persons from the land of Gaon Sabha. The benefit of Section 122-B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act could not have been ordered in consolidation proceedings while deciding the objection filed under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. In the present case the Consolidation Officer while deciding the objection filed under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act by the order dated 19.4.1996 had directed the land in question to be recorded in the name of petitioner, giving him benefit of Section 122-B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which was patently wrong and without jurisdiction.
The appeal preferred by private respondents claiming the land in question was although dismissed, however, the appellate authority i.e., the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Hardoi had rightly observed in its order that the Consolidation Officer has no authority or power to grant benefit of Section 122-B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act to the petitioner and this order of the Consolidation Officer was without jurisdiction. The appellate authority had correctly directed the land in question shall be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha as Banjar, Prachin Parti. The petitioner against the said appellate order had filed revision which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 29.5.2015.
Needless to observe that the contention of the petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sandila vide order dated 9.12.2005 declared the petitioner as Sankramariya Bhumidhar over the land in question under the provisions of Section 131 Kha of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and the said order was never challenged in any Court of law, was not the matter considered by the Consolidation authorities under the aforesaid proceedings, hence petitioner, at this stage, cannot be permitted to raise such a plea in order to challenge the impugned orders.
In view of above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.8.2015 Ram.
(Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.)