Allahabad High Court
Mangroo Ram Chamaar vs State Of U.P. And Others on 16 May, 2011
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 28189 of 2011
Petitioner :- Mangroo Ram Chamaar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Ashok Kumar Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,S.L. Yadav
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The contention raised is that the Collector has passed the impugned order in a cryptic way without following the due process of law and has not recorded findings in respect of all the plots that were in dispute.
The contention raised is that public utility land could not have been given in exchange nor the entries could have been made by the consolidation authorities in respect of such category of land.
Having perused the entire records and the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court has already dealt with such matters in the case of Adnan Ahmad Vs. Sana Ullah & Ors., 2010 (1) ADJ 448 and Ravindra Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (1) ADJ 470, has held that the due process of law even otherwise has to be followed in order to rectify the error if any after giving a fair opportunity to the person affected to contest the matter. The Collector as a matter of fact ought to have passed an order to approach the consolidation authorities for the redressal of such grievances and the rectification of wrong entries or the setting aside of such orders that are adverse to the interest of the Gaon Sabha.
Needless to say, the consolidation authorities are under an obligation during the process of consolidation to protect the interest of the Gaon Sabha as provided for under Section 11-C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. If consolidation proceedings have already come to an end, and if any orders have been passed after the publication of notification under Section 52, then such orders can always be assailed either by way of a restoration or by way of regular challenge before the appropriate forum.
A representation to the Collector would certainly not lie in such matters. The U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 read with the provisions of the U.P. C.H. Act, 1953 and the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 is a complete code which provides for rectification of any such error through regular process and the procedure is already provided for in detail. The entertaining of representations and adjustments thereon is not warranted as the legislature in its wisdom has framed laws for this purpose. The field is already occupied. This Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot legislate and create any new forum for representations as prayed for by the petitioner. The Collector as a matter of fact appears to have proceeded to decide the matter only on account of the observations made in the decision of this Court dated 20.4.2011. The petitioner can always approach the consolidation authorities and the Deputy Director of Consolidation if apprised of any such possible error or fraud will be under an obligation to rectify the same in accordance with law. The impugned order is only an administrative exercise which is subject to any orders being passed in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the adjudicatory forums as provided for under the laws referred to hereinabove.
The writ petition is rejected with the aforesaid observations.
Order Date :- 16.5.2011
Sahu
