Tej Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 9910 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 30
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1841 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Tej Bahadur Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Kant,Anand Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. at Lucknow as respondent no.7 in the writ petition during course of the day.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5 and 7.

The instant writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:

"I. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent no.5 to take the final decision upon the application filed by the petitioner on 5.5.2022 within time specified by the Hon'ble Court.

II. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to decide the objection of the tenure holders of Village Gram Sabha Banki, Post Sikrara, Pargana Kariyat Dost Tehsil Sadar, District- Jaunpur under Section 21 (i) (ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 in accordance with the law, and until the disposal of the objection not to disturb the holdings of the tenure holders.

III. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

IV. And, award costs of the petition."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is tenure holder of the village-in-question. He further submitted that the village was notified under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on 9th March, 2004. He further submitted that even after expiry of 18 years, the consolidation proceeding has not been concluded and the tenure holders of the village are facing difficulties, as such, representations/applications have been submitted before respondent-authorities for the redressal of their grievances.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner should approach the authorities for the redressal of his grievance if he is interested in cancellation of the consolidation proceeding.

In support of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a case reported in 2011 (113) RD 231, Janardan Singh and Others Vs. District Magistrate / District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and Others. In the aforementioned judgment, this Court allowed the writ petition and issued direction to the authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioner otherwise cancel the notification in the village in question.

Para No.12, 27 and 28 of the Janardan Singh (supra) as follows:

"12. In between the respondent Ajay Kumar Singh and some others appear to have approached the authorities at Lucknow and also the Collector by moving a representation that the consolidation operations should be concluded only in accordance with law. The first application dated 15.6.06 that was moved by the petitioner is Annexure 1 to Writ Petition No. 4222 of 2010.

27. Coming to the next issue relating to the argument of the learned counsel for the contesting respondent that consolidation operations should commence from the stage of preparation of statement of principles, it appears from the affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector who has passed the impugned order, should have taken this fact into account as to whether the statement of principles had been prepared with the consultation of the Consolidation Committee or without its consultation. The constitution of the Committee is defined under Rule 3-A of the Consolidation Rules. If the statement of principles have to be modified or rescinded then the view of the Consolidation Committee shall have a direct bearing, and the impugned order does not record any such consultation with the Consolidation Committee. In such a situation the District Magistrate/Collector was not justified in straight away proceeding to exercise his powers suo-motu annulling all proceedings. The District Magistrate is also exercising the power of Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act and if the revisions were pending on the judicial he could have decided the same on the basis of the material before him including the subsequent events that may have been necessary for the purpose for either setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation or carrying out of the consolidation process in accordance with the statement of principles. It was not necessary for the District Magistrate in the given circumstances to have exercised his suo-motu powers in order to annul all proceedings including the judicial process adopted by the parties. Even otherwise if the District Magistrate found that the entire process deserved to be set aside then in such a situation the District Magistrate ought to have proceeded in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law and the powers conferred under Section 48 of the Act. It is no doubt true that the power vests in the Deputy Director of Consolidation or the District Magistrate to annul such proceedings in view of the decisions that have been referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent. While exercising powers on the judicial side they have to confine to the limits of exercise of such power that is available to the authorities. The Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 44-A would therefore exercise a power to proceed to which it is permissible in law and not beyond the same. The power of the Settlement Officer Consolidation under Section 21(4) as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondent therefore will have to be exercised on the parameters prescribed therein and not beyond that.

28. Accordingly for the reasons given above the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 7.8.2009 is quashed . The District Magistrate shall now forward the entire documents relating to the plea of cancellation of notification before the State Govt. The State Govt shall on receipt of such documents proceed to take a decision objectively keeping in view the larger interest of the villagers and the reports that have been submitted from time to time as to whether it is necessary to cancel the notification under Section 4 or not. This decision shall be taken by the State Govt within two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order. The Principal Secretary (Revenue), Govt. of U.P. shall proceed with he matter in the light of the observations made herein above and pass an order in accordance with law. Needless to say that this has to be done with the aid of the Consolidation Commissioner of the State and after obtaining the views of the petitioners, the concerned Gaon Sabha, and any other government department without being influenced by political considerations or undue influence of Land Mafias."

I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

There is no dispute about the fact that village was brought under consolidation operation in the year 2004 and more than eighteen years have passed but the consolidation proceedings have not been concluded and the tenure holders of the village are facing various difficulties, as such, in view of the law laid down by this Court as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is finally disposed of directing the respondent no.7 i.e. Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. at Lucknow to consider the application / representation of the petitioner and decide the same strictly in accordance with law as well as according to the provisions of U.P.C.H. Act and rules framed thereunder.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) Petitioner will file fresh application along with certified copy of this order before respondent no.7 within two weeks from today.

(ii) Respondent no.7 will decide the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions contained under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and Rules framed thereunder as well as according to ratio of law laid down by this Court reported in Janardan Singh (supra) within period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.

Order Date :- 11.8.2022

Rameez