Allahabad High Court
Brijesh Kumar Yadav And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 August, 2021
Bench: Manoj Misra, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17062 of 2021
Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Jaiswal,Sandeep Kumar Keshari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents; and perused the record.
The dispute in the present case relates to recovery of compensation paid for Plot No.2117/14 at Village-Bihada, Pargana-Kaswar Raja, Tehsil-Rajatalab, District-Varanasi.
According to the petitioners, their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Kole, instituted Suit No.311 of 1967 in the Court of Judicial Officer (Revenue), Varanasi under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for declaration of Sirdari rights in respect of Plot No.2117/14 (supra). The suit, upon contest by the State, was dismissed by the Court of Judicial Officer (Revenue) vide judgment and order dated 05.03.1968. However, thereafter, the area was put under consolidation. During consolidation proceedings, the Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 04.04.2005, rejected the objection to the entries made in favour of Kole. But, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, by his order dated 16.02.2009, passed in Appeal No.1376, under Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, held that Plot No.2117/14 shall be recorded as Gram Sabha land ('banjar') after scoring off the name of Kole. While deciding as above, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation took notice of the finding returned by the court in its judgment dated 05.03.1968 in suit under section 229-B that the said plot was Banjar land. Against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is still pending and status quo order is operating.
In the meantime, the land was subjected to acquisition and the petitioners were awarded compensation which came to be deposited in their bank accounts. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, upon being apprised of the fact that the land in dispute, in respect of which compensation was provided, was Gram Sabha land declared as such by the Court of Judicial Officer as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation, by the impugned order dated 24.06.2021, directed the Branch Manager of the Bank concerned to keep the amount attached and return the same to the Government.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that insofar as the title to the land is concerned, the proceedings are pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and since the petitioners have been in possession over the land, they were rightly offered compensation and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
We do not find any substance in the aforesaid plea, inasmuch as it has not been denied that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had examined the facts of the case and, after taking notice of the judgment and order dated 05.03.1968 passed by the Judicial Officer (Revenue), Varanasi, directed that the land be recorded as 'banjar', i.e. it remains vested with the State/Gaon Sabha. Though, a revision might have been filed against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, but, admittedly, that revision is pending and the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has not been set aside although parties have been directed to maintain status quo.
Under these circumstances, the petitioners were not entitled to compensation of that land till such time the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation stands. Hence, we find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Dismissal of this petition, however, shall be without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to claim compensation, if, ultimately, they succeed in the revision filed against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation.
Order Date :- 4.8.2021
SK
