Allahabad High Court
Shri Ramleela Committee Dhata vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 8 August, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:159517
Court No. - 48
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1576 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shri Ramleela Committee Dhata
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhiraj Srivastava,K.P. Verma,Sr. Advocate Sri B.K. Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Awadhesh Kumar Sharma,Bhual Vishwakarma,Ram Bachan Yadav,Ram Sakal Yadav,Sunil Kumar Singh,Vivek Mishra
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Dharm Pal Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K.P. Verma, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri C.K. Parekh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for private respondents and Sri Sharad Chandra Singh, learned A.C.S.C. appearing on behalf of State.
2. Petitioners have claimed themself to be a Ramleela Committee and have approached this Court through its Manager. The petitioners are aggrieved that their long possession on land in dispute being admitted on basis of a resolution dated 11.1.1965 passed by Land Management Committee, was disturbed at the instance of private respondents, mainly on the grounds that land in question was entered in revenue records as a 'Talab'.
3. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that proceedings were initiated on basis of a complaint by private respondents and Settlement Officer Consolidation treated it to be an appeal and passed the impugned order dated 31.05.2018 by returning a finding that resolution dated 11.1.1965 was outcome of a fraud and it was directed to correct the entries in revenue records.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that aforesaid proceedings were conducted at the back of petitioners without giving any notice or opportunity to defend their case and, therefore, petitioners have approached before Revisional Authority by filing a revision petition. The revision petition was dismissed and the finding returned by Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation was upheld.
5. Learned Senior Counsel has referred various provisions of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reform Act 1950 as well as judgments passed by Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamala Devi and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 496 and a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Chaturgun and others Vs. State of U.P. and others in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14 of 2005, that if any adverse order is passed against any party, it is required that the Authority ought to have heard the aggrieved party and that if the parties are encroaching a pond, they shall be evicted by due process of law.
6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that even in Hinch Lal Tiwari (supra), it has not been held by Supreme Court that concerned party is not required to be heard.
7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for private respondents has supported the impugned orders and submits that land in question was entered as a 'Talab' in revenue records and there was no authority with Land Management Committee to pass a direction to admit the petitioners on said land. The possession of petitioners are outcome of a fraud. He placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2011) 11 SCC 396.
8. Learned A.C.S.C. for State has supported the impugned action that petitioners were in unauthorized possession of land which was entered in revenue records as 'Talab'.
9. I have perused the material on record and various judgments referred above. It is not in dispute that petitioners were not heard by Settlement Officer, Consolidation and findings were returned against them and though he has approached the Revisional Authority but it is apparent that Revisional Authority has upheld the findings against them.
10. The purport of Hinch Lal Tiwari (supra) and other judgments passed by Supreme Court is to safeguard the ponds and other public utility land from encroachment. In Jagpal Sing(supra) a general mandamus is issued to State to recover such land back from encroachers.
11. It is not under dispute that petitioners are in possession of land in dispute for last many years and in nature of land has also been disturbed by possession of unauthorized persons over it. The State also remains lethargic to take action against any of the encroachers despite the general directions were passed by Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Sing(supra).
12. The principles of natural justice are essential ingredients for administration of justice. They are required to be followed so that parties aggrieved could be heard before any action is to be taken against them and as referred above the petitioners have been highly prejudiced by orders passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation whereby directions are passed to remove them from the land in dispute without hearing, therefore, at this stage, I am of the view that before any action be taken against petitioners they must be granted opportunity of audience, therefore, orders dated 31.05.2018 and 22.02.2020 are set aside and the matter is remitted to Settlement Officer Consolidation with direction to hear the parties and pass a fresh order.
13. Parties will be at liberty to place their case on merit and may adduce evidence. The aforesaid proceeding shall be concluded within a period of six months from today. It is made clear that any observation in the present order shall not be considered to be in favour of either party.
13. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.8.2023
P. Pandey
