Allahabad High Court
Munisha vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 29 August, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 52
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1986 of 2022
Petitioner :- Munisha
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel represent respondent nos. 1 to 4.
Grievance of the petitioner is that the consolidation authorities are not giving effect to the order dated 24.11.1980 passed in Case No. 3366+3367 and another order dated 24.11.1980 passed in Case No. 3473 and 3474 for giving effect to in the revenue record under the provisions as enunciated under Section 6(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity "U.P.C.H. Act").
Perusal of record reveals that the village Pauhar, wherein land in question are situates, has initially been notified for consolidation operation under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act promulgated on 22.07.1978. At subsequent stage aforesaid notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act was cancelled by the notification under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act promulgated on 03.02.2017. It is further submitted that before issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act, orders dated 24.11.1980 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer have attained finality with respect to the change of record. In paragraph nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the writ petition it has categorically been stated that Assistant Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 24.11.1980 passed in Case No. 3366+3367, has directed to record the name of Chunkauna s/o Imam Bux as co-tenure holder in Khata No. 320. Likewise, another order dated 24.11.1980 was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in Case No. 3473 and 3474 for recording the name of Chunkauna s/o Imam Bux as co-tenure holder in Khata No. 475. Aforesaid both the orders dated 14.11.1980 have attained finality between the parties inasmuch as same have not been challenged by any party before any competent court. In support of the averments as made in paragraph nos. 5, 6 and 7, the petitioner has filed a photostat copy of the extract of Khatauni showing the endorsement of order dated 24.11.1980 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in the cases as mentioned in the paragraphs. It is further submitted that the consolidation authorities are under legal obligation to implement the orders passed during the consolidation operation, before its cancellation, which have attained finality relating to the correction of land record as enunciated under Section 6(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. It is further submitted that this Court has already discussed the proposition of law with respect to the enforcement of the provisions as enunciated under Section 6(2 of U.P.C.H. Act in the case of Shankar Lal vs State of U.P. and others (Writ B No.695 of 2021) decided on 27.07.2021.
In the case of Shankar Lal (supra), after considering several judgments and government notification dated 12.12.2014, this Court has already held that the effect of cancellation of the notification under section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act is that, subject to the final orders passed regarding correction of the record, the area ceases to be under consolidation operations. Relevant paragraphs i.e. para no.6, 7, 8 and 14 of the aforesaid judgment are being reproduced below :-
"6. Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act empowers the State Government to cancel the notification issued under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act by which particular area or unit brought under the consolidation operation. The consequential effect of the cancellation of notification is enunciated under sub-Section 2 of Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act which denotes that, from the date of cancellation of the notification area/unit shall ceased to be under consolidation operation subject to final orders passed with regard to correction of records.
7. To avert any complications due to the cancellation of the notification promulgated under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act, Legislation has made the provisio under Section 6(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. Phrase "subject to the final orders relating to the correction of land records" as used u/s 6(2) of U.P.C.H. Act explicitly connotes wider effect of notification u/s 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. After cancellation of notification, land records, including basic year entries should be corrected in accordance with the orders, passed during the consolidation proceedings, which have attained the finality.
8. Provisions u/s 6(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, left no room for doubt that final orders, if any, passed during the consolidation proceeding, on or before the cancellation of notification as provided u/s 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act, shall be given effect to the revenue records and, accordingly, final revenue records shall be maintained after cessation of the area to be under consolidation operations.
14. In this view of matter, Consolidation authorities are under legal obligation to correct the revenue record after the cancellation of the notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act in accordance with the final orders which were passed and attained finality on or before the cancellation of notification as mentioned under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. Present matter relates to the consequential effect of the cancellation of the notification wherein final order had already been passed to correct the revenue record. Therefore, petitioner has legal right to get his name recorded under the provisions of Section 6(2) of U.P.C.H. Act."
Therefore, I am of the view that the consolidation authorities are under legal obligation to implement the orders dated 24.11.1980 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, as mentioned in paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the writ petition which has attained finality before issuance of notification section 6 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act with respect to the correction of land record, as averred in paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition.
In this conspectus as above, no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation on the merits of the case as mentioned in the writ petition, with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation with respect to his grievance as mentioned in the present writ petition, within period of two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order before the District Magistrate/District Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 3), who shall, either himself or through the authority competent as permissible under the law, consider and decide the said representation after due enquiry and issue a fresh extract of Khatauni to the petitioner, after implementation of the orders on record, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the aforesaid representation, if there is no other legal impediment.
It is expected that it should be decided by reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned without granting unnecessary adjournments.
With the aforesaid observations, this petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.8.2022
Pkb/
