Allahabad High Court
Lakhan Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 26 September, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 51
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2483 of 2022
Petitioner :- Lakhan Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pusp Raj Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Instant writ petition has been filed inter alia for the following relief :-
"to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the concerned respondent no. 2 the District Magistrate/Collector Banda, District Banda to mutate the name of the petitioner and his ancestors in the revenue record in view of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in Misc. Consolidation Case No. 4683, order dated 23.10.1980, Khata No. 683, Gata No. 1519/2, measuring area 0.21 Acre & Consolidation Case No. 4632, order dated 10.10.1980, Khata No. 635, Gata No. 1519/2, measuring area 0.21 Acre, and issue a fresh Khatauni to the petitioner."
Grievance of the petitioner is that the consolidation authorities are not giving effect to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, as mentioned above, in the land record in pursuance of the provisions as enunciated under Section 6(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that property in question is situated in village Pauhar, District Banda which was notified under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act promulgated on 22.07.1978. Subsequently, consolidation operation was cancelled by notification under Section 6(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act promulgated on 03.02.2017. It is further submitted that during consolidation operation, the Consolidation Officer has passed orders in several cases under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act upholding the right and title of the petitioner over the property in question. Aforesaid orders became final between the parties before cancellation of consolidation operation with respect to the correction of land record inasmuch as same have not been challenged before any competent court. The petitioner has given the details of all the cases and orders passed thereon in paragraph nos. 11 to 15 of the instant writ petition. It is further submitted that the said orders have attained finality before promulgation of notification under Section 6(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act with respect to change in the land record, consequently, all the said orders are required to be given effect to in the revenue record in pursuance of the provisions as enunciated under Section 6(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. It is next submitted that despite several representation made before the consolidation authorities, till date they have not paid any heed to the grievance of the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner has purchased the land in question vide sale deed dated 26.11.1999 from the heirs of the recorded person. The aforesaid sale deed still stands, inasmuch as same has not been challenged before any competent court. On the basis of the aforesaid sale deed, name of the petitioner is mutated in the revenue record.
Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out towards the Government Order dated 12.12.2014 by which direction has been given to all the consolidation authorities to adhere to the provisions as enunciated under Section 6(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 27.07.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 695 of 2021 (Shankar Lal vs. State of U.P.).
In view of the above, the consolidation authorities are under legal obligation to implement the order in the revenue record in pursuance of the provisions as enunciated under Section 6(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act.
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 present writ petition, with a direction that the petitioner is at liberty to move a fresh representation, qua his grievances as mentioned in the instant writ petition, to the District Magistrate/District Deputy Director of Consolidation (Respondent no. 2), who shall decide the same after conducting enquiry as required, if there is no other legal impediment, expeditiously, preferably, within a period five months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with a self attested copy of the instant writ petition.
It is expected that it should be decided by reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner without granting unnecessary adjournments.
With the aforesaid direction, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 26.9.2022/SA
