Subhash Chand & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 1162 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Reserved
 

 
Recall Application no. 227439 of 2011
 
In
 
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3351 of 2004
 

 
Subhash chand & Ors.		-------				Petitioners
 
					Versus
 
State of U.P. & Ors.		-------				Respondents
 

 
					With
 

 
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36540 of 2011
 

 
Shyam Singh & Ors.		-------				Petitioners
 
					Versus
 
State of U.P. & Ors.		-------				Respondents
 

 
					With
 

 
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44944 of 2011
 

 
Vidyawati & Ors.			-------				Petitioners
 
					Versus
 
State of U.P. & Ors.		-------				Respondents
 

 
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

This is an application seeking recall of the final judgment and order dated 09.07.2007. The petitioners therein approached this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the process of transfer of possession of the land situate in village in question in pursuance to the consolidation operations. Though the relief claimed in the writ petition was not very happily worded, but as a matter of fact, the petitioners, who are tenure holder of the land situate in the village in question, were basically aggrieved by the procedure adopted while preparing Statement of Principles during consolidation operations. The petitioners and other tenure holders of the village were dissatisfied on account of the irregularities and illegalities committed by the consolidation staff in fixing valuation of the plots and determining exchange ratio etc. Various complaints were moved, but when the same was not addressed, some of the tenure holders approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 22251 of 2000, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.05.2000 directing that the matter in respect of valuation of the plots etc. be decided by the Consolidation Officer in accordance with law.

When still the grievance was not addressed, again Writ Petition No. 48898 of 2003 was filed. This petition was also disposed of and Assistant Consolidation Officer/Consolidation Officer, Baraut, tehsil Baraut, district Baghpat was directed to pass appropriate speaking order in accordance with law in compliance of the judgment and order dated 28.09.1995. It may be relevant to point out that vide order dated 28.09.1995, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ghaziabad set aside all the orders passed in respect of allotment of chaks up to the stage of Consolidation Officer and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer to hear and decide the objections of the parties on merit in accordance with law.

It appears that thereafter an enquiry into the complaints made by the tenure holders was conducted by the Consolidation Officer, Baghpat, who submitted his report dated 06.01.2004 pointing out the irregularities and illegalities in the preparation of the provisional consolidation scheme.

The petitioners, who are tenure holders of the village, again approached this court by filing instant writ petition. After exchange of affidavits, the Court found that there were various irregularities and illegalities in fixing the valuation and determination of exchange ratio of the plots making provisional consolidation scheme faulty. It may be relevant to quote following observations from the judgment dated 20.12.2006.

"From a perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that irregularities and illegalities have been committed in fixing valuation, determining exchange ratio of the plots making provisional consolidation scheme faulty. It does not appear that such enormous irregularities and illegalities can be corrected and rectified in revision and reference. Deputy Director of Consolidation has also admitted this fact before me during the course of arguments."

Accordingly, it was directed that a fresh provisional consolidation scheme be framed after re-determination of valuation of plots and exchange ratio and the authorities may proceed thereafter with the consolidation operations afresh in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules. It was further directed that the exercise of framing fresh provisional consolidation scheme be completed within six months and by 9th July, 2007, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Baghpat may submit compliance report.

In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation filed a report stating therein that order of this Court has been complied with and redetermination of valuation and exchange ratio has been done and the consolidation is proceeding with. The compliance report was accepted on 09.07.2007 and the writ petition was consigned to record.

After about four years, some of the petitioners and few other tenure holders have filed this application dated 04.08.2011 seeking recall of the order dated 09.07.2007 mainly on the following grounds.

"(i) Consolidation authorities did not make any efforts to remove the irregularities and have made only minor amendment in the record without carrying out the directions and did not adhere to the procedure prescribed, as such, the illegalities still exist and the provisional consolidation scheme framed continues to be faulty and to the detriment of tenure holders in general.

(ii) By minor amendments, benefit has been extended only to some big and influential tenure holders, and it is only an eye wash.

(iii) Re-determination of valuation and exchange ratio has been made without any notice to the petitioners-applicants and Statement of Principles have been framed without following the procedure prescribed under Section 8, 8 A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act."

Much emphasis has been laid upon the fact that the Statement of Principles under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) have been framed without any spot inspection and without giving any notice to any of the tenure holders concerned and without holding any meeting with the consolidation committee. The applicants have gone to the extent of alleging that signatures of some of the members of the consolidation committee have been fabricated.

Writ Petition No. 44944 of 2011 has been filed by the applicants of the recall application, out of which some applicants were also petitioners of Writ Petition No. 3351 of 2004. seeking a prayer to quash the entire consolidation proceedings and to direct the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law after giving notice and opportunity to the tenure holders, which has been connected with this petition as the issue involved is identical.

Another Writ Petition No. 36540 of 2011 filed by some tenure holders of the village, wherein a mandamus was sought to command the respondent authorities to carry out the measurement and deliver the possession of the chak to the tenure holders, was also connected as the issue involved therein is again identical.

Counter affidavit was filed by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Deputy Director of Consolidation and various other supplementary affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been filed by the parties.

Since the averments asserted by one party was being denied either by the State respondents or other tenure holders and it was a case of oath against oath and since the issue could have easily been resolved by looking into the record, vide order dated 07.02.2013, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Consolidation Officer, Baghpat were directed to appear in person along with complete record.

A very bulky record relating to the consolidation operation was produced before me and after a marathon hearing, which continued on various dates, the exercise of looking into the record was undertaken. The Court puts on record the appreciation for S/Shri Surendera Ram, Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate, Baghpat, Girish Chand Uniyal, Assistant Consolidation Officer, Baghpat, Ajay Sharma, Consolidator and Anil Kumar, Lekhpal, Rohta Kumar, Lekhpal and Ombir Sharma, Clerk and in particular R.K. Katiyar, Consolidation Officer, Ghaziabad, who very well assisted the Court in scanning the bulky record.

I have heard Shri B.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vivek Kumar Singh for the applicants of the recall application, Shri Vivek Shandilya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri R.C. Singh.

On conclusion of hearing, the photocopy of the relevant original record was provided by the learned Standing Counsel, which was retained and the original record was returned back.

As already stated, the main thrust of argument of Shri B.P. Singh appearing for the applicants was that amendment carried out in the provisional consolidation scheme was not in consonance with the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2006 and the compliance affidavit filed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 09.07.2007 contains incorrect facts and was false. It was further argued that the applicants and other tenure holders were not consulted and no spot inspection was made. It was also pointed out that there is noting on record in the counter affidavit that at any stage, any notice was issued or served. He also pointed out that members of consolidation committee have given notary affidavit, which was taken on record that they were never consulted and their signatures on the record are forged.

Based on the affidavit of the members of the consolidation committee, it was submitted that as a matter of fact, there was no consultation with the consolidation committee as required under the Act, and the procedure prescribed for preparation of Statement of Principles having not been followed, the amended provisional consolidation scheme framed continues to be faulty and illegal.

Shri B.P. Singh further submitted that entire consolidation scheme ought to have been started afresh from the stage of Section 5 of the Act.

In reply, Shri K.R. Sirohi submitted that in view of the directions contained in the order dated 20.12.2006, a fresh provisional consolidation scheme was required to be framed after determination of the valuation and exchange ratio afresh and that is what has been done by the authorities. He further submitted that, in case, any of the tenure holders of the village were aggrieved by provisional consolidation scheme, the Act contains specific provision for redressal of their grievances and, in case, few of the tenure holders are aggrieved or not satisfied by the provisional consolidation scheme, the entire scheme is not liable to be scrapped or quashed as suggested by Shri B.P. Singh.

Learned counsel for the parties placed before me provisions of consolidation Act, Rules as also various provisions of Chakbandi Manual to support their rival contentions.

I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the original record with the help of the consolidation authorities.

At this stage, it may be relevant to mention that the averments made in the affidavit and counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by the parties, lose much of their significance when the original record has been perused by me and in these circumstances, various averments made by the parties in their affidavits are not being referred to in detail.

Before proceeding to analyse the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the record scrutinised by me, it may be relevant to note the scheme of the Consolidation Act.

The Act is divided in 5 Chapters. Chapter I deals with the short title and commencement of the Act, repeal of the earlier Act and contains definition clause, which is not relevant in context of the present dispute. Chapter II relates to revision and correction of the maps and record. Chapter III deals with the preparation of the consolidation scheme and Chapter IV with the enforcement of the Scheme. Chapter 5 relates to miscellaneous provision, which again is not relevant.

The consolidation operations starts with the declaration and notification regarding consolidation made under Section 4 of the Act falling under Chapter II. The proceedings started with the revision of the field book and current annual register and also the determination of valuation and shares in the holdings as provided under Section 8 of the Act.

Section 8 reads as under.

"8. Revision of the field-book and the current annual register : Determination of valuations and shares in joint holdings- (1) Upon the revision of the maps under Section 7, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, and in such manner as may be prescribed, cause to be-

(i) revised, the filed-book of the unit after filed-to-field partal, and the current annual register after its test and verification;

(ii) determined, in consultation with the Consolidation Committee, the valuation of-

(a) each plot after taking into consideration its productivity, location and availability of irrigation facilities, if any; and

(b) all trees, wells and other improvements existing in the plots for the purpose of calculating compensation thereof;

(iii) ascertained the share of each owner, if there be more owners than one, out of the valuation determined under sub-clause (b) of clause (ii); and

(iv) determined the shares of individual tenure-holder in joint holdings for the purpose of effecting partition to ensure proper consolidation.

(2) The District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall cause to be prepared a khasra chakbandi, in the form prescribed, in respect of all the plots falling in the units as also a statement showing the mistakes undisputed cases of succession and disputes discovered during the test and verification of the annual register and in the course of the field-to-field partal."

A perusal of the aforesaid provision goes to show that the valuation of each plot is to be done in consultation with the consolidation committee and after taking into consideration its productivity, location and availability of irrigation facility etc. Again for fixing valuation of the trees, wells and other improvements existing in the plots for the purpose of calculating compensation to be paid to the tenure holders, the Consolidation committee is to be consulted. The shares of the co-owners out of the valuation so determined and the share of individual tenure holders in joint holding for the purpose of effecting partition is also undertaken at the stage of Section 8.

After the exercise prescribed under Section 8 of the Act is over, the Consolidation Officer proceeds to prepare a statement of principles, which is to be done in consultation with the consolidation committee.

Section 8 A (i) reads as under.

"8-A. Preparation of statement of principles.- (1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall, in consultation with the Consolidation Committee, prepare, in respect of each unit under consolidation operations, a statement in the prescribed form (hereinafter called the Statement of Principles) setting forth the principles to be followed in carrying out the consolidation operations in the unit.

(2) The Statement of Principles shall also contain-

(a) details of areas, as far as they can be determined at this stage, to be earmarked for extension of abadi including area for abadi site for Harijans and landless persons in the unit, and for such other public purposes as may be prescribed;

(b) the basis on which the tenure-holders will contribute land for extension of abadi and for other public purposes; and

(c) details of land to be earmarked for public purposes out of land vested in Gaon Sabha or a Local Authority under Section 117 or Section 117-A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950;

(d) the standard plot for each unit."

Section 8 A (2) prescribes the details to be contained under statement of principles. After the revision of the field book and current annual register is carried out and a statement of principles is prepared and the clerical mistakes etc. in the record are corrected and the valuation of the plots are determined and the shares are ascertained, notice under Section 9 of the Act is issued to the tenure holders and other interested persons inviting objections in respect of the correctness and the nature of entries in the record as reflected in the statement of principles as also in respect of the determination of shares and for the purposes of partition.

Section 9 is quoted hereunder.

"9. Issue of extracts from records and statements and publication of records mentioned in Sections 8 and 8-A and the issue of notices for inviting objections.- (1) Upon the preparation of the records and the statements mentioned in Section 8 and 8-A, the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall-

(a) correct the clerical mistakes, if any, and send, or cause to be sent, to the tenure-holders concerned and other persons interested, notices containing relevant extracts from the current annual register and such other records as may be prescribed showing-

(i) their rights in the liabilities in relation to the land;

(ii) mistakes, undisputed cases of succession and disputes discovered under Section 8 in respect thereof;

(iii) specific shares of individual tenure-holders in joint holdings for the purpose of effecting partitions, where necessary, to ensure proper consolidation;

(iv) valuation of the plot; and

(b) valuation of trees, wells and other improvements for calculating compensation therefor and its apportionment amongst owners, if there be more owners than one;

(c) publish in the unit current khasra and current annual register, the khasra chakbandi, the Statements of Principles prepared under Section 8-A, and any other records that may be prescribed to show, inter alia, the particulars referred to in clause (a).

(2) Any person to whom a notice under sub-section (1) has been sent, or any other person interested may, within 21 days of the receipt of notice, or of the publication under sub-section (1), as the case may be, file before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, objections in respect thereof disputing the correctness or nature of the entries in the records or in the extracts furnished therefrom or in the Statement of Principles, or the need for partition."

Section 9 A prescribes for disposal of the objection made by the tenure holders or other interested persons in pursuance to the notice under Section 9 of the Act.

The same reads as under.

"9-A. Disposal of cases relating to claims to land and partition of joint holdings.- (1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall-

(i) where objections in respect of claims to land or partition of joint holdings are filed, after hearing the parties concerned; and

(ii) where no objections are filed, making such enquiry as he may deem necessary;

settle the disputes, correct the mistakes and effect partition as far as may be by consolidation between the parties appearing before him and pass orders on the basis of conciliation:

Provided that where the Assistant Consolidation Officer, after making such enquiry as he may deem necessary, is satisfied that a case of succession is undisputed, he shall dispose of the case on the basis of such enquiry.

(2) All cases which are not disposed of by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under sub-section (1), all cases relating to valuation of plots and all cases relating to valuation of trees, wells or other improvement, for calculating compensation therefor, and its appointment amongst co-owners, if there be more owners than one, shall be forwarded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer, who shall dispose of the same in the manner prescribed.

(3) The Assistant Consolidation Officer, while acting under sub-section (1) and the Consolidation Officer, while acting under sub-section (2), shall be deemed to be a court of competent jurisdiction, anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force notwithstanding."

Section 9 B of the Act prescribes for disposal of objections made on the statement of principles and Section 9 C for partition of the joint holdings. After the disposal of objections made under Section 9 A of the Act, the annual register is revised on the basis of the orders passed on the objections and after finalisation, it is prepared and published in the prescribed form. Section 11 provides for appeals by the affected parties against the order passed in proceedings under Section 9 A of the Act. Section 12 again gives an opportunity to the tenure holders to file objection with respect to matters relating to changes and transfers affecting any of the rights or interests recorded in the revised records published under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act for which a cause of action may not have arisen at the stage of proceedings under Sections 7 to 9 and the provision of Sections 7 to 11 have been mutatis and mutandis applied to the hearing and decision of any such matter raised.

After the stage of Statement of Principles, i.e., the stage prescribed by Sections 7 to 9 is over, a provisional consolidation scheme is required to be framed under Section 19, which prescribes the conditions to be observed and fulfilled while framing a consolidation scheme. This falls under Chapter III of the Act and contains the procedure for preparation of provisional consolidation scheme and provides for objections to the same by tenure holders, disposal thereof, appeals etc.

Chapter III relates to the allotment of chak to the tenure holders. Thus, Chapter II of the Act and Chapter III of the Act provides two distinct and separate stages of the consolidation operations. Under Chapter II, a Statement of Principles is prepared, which basically relate to revision of field book of the unit after field to field partal and verification of the entries in the current annual register and rectification thereof, accordingly. After the stage provided under Chapter II is over, a provisional consolidation scheme is framed under Chapter III and that relates to allotment of chaks to the tenure holders.

Prima facie, from a scheme of Act, it appears that before undertaking the preparation and publication of provisional consolidation scheme under Section 20 of the Act, the authorities are required to dispose of the entire proceedings in respect to the Statement of Principles, i.e., all the objections made under Section 9 A (2) of the Act, should stand finally decided.

Though the provisional consolidation scheme is to be framed after finalisation of proceeding under Chapter II of the Act, but that does not necessarily mean that consolidation authorities are required to dispose of the entire proceeding, that is to say, all objections made in pursuance to the provisions of Section 9 A (2) of the Act finally. This becomes clear from the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, which provides for preparation and maintenance of revised annual register. The said Section reads as under.

"10. Preparation and maintenance of revised annual registers.-(1) The annual register shall be revised on the basis of the orders passed under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 9-A. It shall thereafter be prepared in the form prescribed and published in the unit.

(2) Where any entry in the annual register, published under sub-section (1), is modified in pursuance of an order passed under this Act or under any other law, a reference to the order along with an extract of its operative portion shall be noted against the said entry."

The language clearly suggests that annual register prepared under sub-section (1) of Section is not permanent record incapable of any alteration subsequently as the nomenclature itself suggests it is a register, which is prepared annually keeping in view the order which may have been passed under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 9 A. In view of the provisions of Section 10 (2) of the Act, annual register is liable to be modified in pursuance to an order, which may be passed under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 9 A of the Act. This will include within its ambit any order passed on appeal under Section 11 or upon a revision under Section 48 of the Act. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act having been made applicable to the proceedings of the Consolidation even a time barred objection can be filed after expiry of the period prescribed under Section 9.

Thus, the annual register is subject to being revised from time to time in accordance with the order passed under the provisions of the Act referred to above. Thus, it is clear that if the finalisation of the preparation of the provisional consolidation scheme is kept in abeyance awaiting final adjudication of every single objection under Section 9 A, the entire purpose of the consolidation would stand defeated. In view of various and varied objections, which the Act provides final disposal thereof takes considerable time. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that many a times an objection takes several years in its final disposal. Thus, the scheme of the Act cannot be interpreted to mean that provisional consolidation scheme under Section 19-A and proceedings for allotment of chak under Section 20 could be taken only after all objections under Section 9 A, have been finally disposed of. Giving such an interpretation would mean that consolidation authorities would not be able to even initiate the preparation of the provisional consolidation scheme and to publish the same and proceed for the chak allotment, even after years from the commencement of the consolidation operations. The Act is a social legislation and, therefore, has been construed in a broad way so as to subserve the interest of the community at large. Thus, what necessarily follows is that consolidation authorities will take the annual register prepared under Section 10 as it stands at the time of framing of the provisional consolidation scheme under Section 19 A of the Act, even if some of the objections raised under Chapter II, that is, under Section 9 A of the Act may still be pending adjudication. The mechanism provided under the Act has abundantly taken care of the situation by vesting the Deputy Director of Consolidation with power of reference under Section 48 of the Act, even after confirmation of the provisional consolidation scheme for effectuating the order passed on objections filed under Section 9 A of the Act, which may have been pending at the time of preparation of the provisional consolidation scheme and allotment of chak, thereafter by making readjustment of the chak allotted to the aggrieved tenure holders.

The view taken by me finds support from a Full Bench decision, which was constituted on a reference due to conflict of opinion in this regard. A learned Single Judge in the case of Chadrapal Singh & Ors. Vs. Bhola Singh & Ors., 1972 RD 350, took a view that proceedings under Section 20 should be started only after all the objections are decided under Section 9 A of the Act. Same view was expressed by another learned Single Judge in the case of Ganga Prasad Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1968 AWR 869. However, a Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 6605 of 1984, Hasan Raja & Ors. Vs. Collector, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad & Ors., expressed a contrary view. Another Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 849 of 1977 in the case of Ram Charan Singh & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, decided on February 25, 1977 took the same view. In the case of Mewati Devi Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, the issue was referred for adjudication to a Full Bench reported in 1987 RD 186. The Full Bench held as under.

"In conclusion, we hold that the Consolidation Authorities are not required to await the disposal of all objections filed under Section 9 of the Act before initiating proceedings for preparation and publication of the provisional Consolidation Scheme under Section 19 A and 20 of the Act. We are in agreement with the opinion expressed by the Division Benches in the cases of Hasan Raza and Ram Charan Singh (supra). The learned Single Judge decisions in the cases of Chandrapal Singh and Ganga Prasad (supra) taking a contrary view do not, in our opinion, lay down the correct law and the same are overruled."

It is, thus, well settled that merely because some objections filed by the tenure holders under Section 9 A of the Act either in respect of the possession of land or partition of joint holdings etc. or with respect of valuation of plots, trees, Wells or other improvements for the purpose of calculating compensation is pending, the preparation of provisional consolidation scheme shall not be postponed awaiting the final adjudication of the said objections.

Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants for scrapping the entire provisional consolidation scheme on account of the fact that many objections in respect of the valuations of the land either could not be filed for want of notice or the determination thereof is illegal, de hors the procedure, does not hold any water. It is true that, in case, the consolidation authorities while carrying out survey under Section 8 and preparation of Statements of Principles under Section 8 A of the Act have not followed the procedure and the illegalities and irregularities are of such a large extent that it may not at all possible to carry out the corrections by taking recourse of the Act by filing objections and appeal etc., the Court is not powerless to quash the proceedings and to direct the authorities to proceed afresh.

The question for consideration is whether such a circumstances exist in the facts of the present case so as to permit the applicants to invoke the power and the Court to exercise the same. The issue was considered in detail at the time of the passing of the judgment and order dated 20.12.2006 and it was found that there has been irregularities and illegalities in fixing the valuation, determination of the exchange ratio of the plot, on account of which the provisional consolidation scheme became so faulty that it necessitated a direction to the consolidation authorities to re-determine the valuation of plots and exchange ratio afresh and thereafter to proceed to prepare provisional consolidation scheme for allotment of chaks.

Only a handful, i.e., 24 chak holders, out of total 1813 chak holders in the village, have approached this Court raising objections with regard to violation of the procedure while making Statements of Principles, some of the applicants herein were petitioners in the writ petition, which was disposed of and the order whereof is sought to be recalled, but these objections, which have been raised in the recall application and vehemently pressed at the time of arguments, were not taken at that stage, though it was open to them.

Shri B.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that irregularities have been committed by the consolidation authorities right from the inception of the consolidation operations, which started with distribution of Form 5 and the procedure was not adhered to. Firstly, this objection was not raised earlier by the applicants, some of whom were petitioners at any stage of the writ petition. Secondly, from a perusal of the original record, which has been produced before me, I do not find any such irregularity or illegality or violation of the procedure, which leads to a situation to again direct scrapping of the provisional consolidation scheme.

Referring to various provisions of the Chakbandi Manual, learned counsel for the applicants suggested that there has been complete violation of the procedure. Again from a scanning of the record, the allegations are not borne out. No useful purpose would be served by referring to various provisions of Chakbandi Manual, which require issuance of notice to tenure holders and to consult the members of the Consolidation Committee and to make this judgment more bulky, when from the perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the requirement under the Act and the procedure prescribed in the Chakbandi Manual, was generally adhered to by the consolidation authorities. In so far as certain notorial affidavits of the members of the Consolidation Committee filed by the applicants to support the contention that they were never consulted is concerned, the same is not borne out from a perusal of original proceeding book as it shows that members of consolidation committee were consulted. The Court does not find it appropriate, in the facts and circumstances, to initiate any inquiry in respect of the veracity or truthfulness of the notary affidavits of the member of the Committee, since the proceeding book demonstrates that there was an effective consultation. The record also demonstrates that spot inspection has been made before finalising the Statements of Principles and the allegations made by the recall applicants in this regard is again not borne out from the original record.

It is pertinent to point out that the random scanning of the original record was carried out and specific instance of certain tenure holders pointed out by Shri B.P. Singh was also scanned in the original record with the help of consolidation authorities, but no such procedural irregularities was detected as has been suggested.

To take a specific example, based on the averments made in paragraph 8 of the rejoinder affidavit of the applicants, Shri B.P. Singh has vehemently contended that plot nos. 1666, 3214 and 3095, which were taken as standard plots, are sub-merged. The record totally belies the said averment. The original map produced before me goes to show that all the aforesaid three plots, which were fixed as standard plots by the authorities, are adjacent to pakka road and very far away from the river and the allegations that they are sub-merged, is totally incorrect. In the affidavits, certain specific allegations in respect of certain tenure holders, who are not parties in the proceedings, have been made by the applicants.

Presuming that the allegations made by the parties in respect of certain tenure holders are correct, but then the Act envisages a complete mechanism for redressal of the grievances and, in case, some of the tenure holders are aggrieved by determination of valuation of their plots etc, they can invoke the mechanism prescribed under the Act and in view of the above, a few individual grievances in this respect, cannot constitute a ground to scrap the entire consolidation operations undertaken over a decade and to direct fresh proceedings.

Shri B.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate relying upon a chart produced before me, has urged that out of the total 1825 tenure holders, 39 tenure holders have been allotted an area less than 25% of the area of their original holding and 42 tenure holders have been allotted an area more than 25% of the area of their original holding. These numbers work out as 3% of the total tenure holders. Not even a single effected person has come forward in this regard. Secondly, even this has been done and any tenure holders is aggrieved by the same, again the Act provides for a mechanism for redressal of such grievances. Mere variation in case of 3% of the tenure holders, if at all there is any, again does not constitute a ground to scrap the consolidation operation.

As already stated hereinabove, the Court has carried out sample testing from the record and also scrutinised the record in respect of specific instances of tenure holders pointed out by learned counsel for the applicants either in the affidavit, supplementary affidavit or orally during the course of the arguments, but none of them are borne out from the record.

In view of the judgment and order dated 20.12.2006, Consolidation authorities were only required to carry out fresh exercise in respect of determination of valuation of plots and exchange ratio and no direction was issued to start de novo proceedings from the stage of Section 8. However, still since the record was produced, the arguments and allegations made by the recall applicants into various alleged irregularities said to have been committed at that stage, was looked into the record and not found substantiated.

It appears that a few handful of the tenure holders of the village have been making efforts to stall the consolidation operations under one pretext or the other and the recall application and the other writ petition filed by them seeking a relief that delivery of possession may not be effected, is clearly indicative of their intentions. Neither such tenure holders can be permitted to keep on hold the entire consolidation operations just to sub-serve their vested interests nor the Court can be a party to their illegal designs. The recall application filed by the applicants is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the Court and, accordingly, stands dismissed.

Writ Petition No. 44944 of 2011, wherein some of the recall applicants along with others, are petitioners, seeking a prayer to quash the entire consolidation proceedings, is also totally misconceived and again a gross abuse of the process of the Court and the same, accordingly, stands dismissed.

The Consolidation authorities are directed to proceed in the matter ahead and finalise the consolidation operations as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed under the Act. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 36540 of 2011 seeking a mandamus to command the respondent authorities to carry out the measurement and delivery of possession of the chak to the tenure holders, stands disposed of in the light of the directions made above.

April 24, 2014

VKS