Allahabad High Court
Narayani Devi vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 8 February, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3681 of 2023
Petitioner :- Narayani Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sajiwan Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Ram Sajiwan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for respondent no. 1 to 4.
It is the case of the petitioners that certain entries have been wrongly entered in the revenue record during the course when the Chakbandi was operating in the village and post Sehud, District Auraiya and as such he initiated the proceedings under Section 14(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,1953 and the same has been duly adjudicated by Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Etawah vide order dated 17.1.1992, through which the order and direction was issued for warranted correction which culminated into entry against the revenue record has been maintained against the name of the petitioners.
It has been informed during the course of argument that the notification of consolidation has been cancelled by the Government order dated 25.6.2012 under Section 6(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,1953. Thereafter, the respondents approached before this Court by way of filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 20981 of 2016 (Rama Devi and 14 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) challenging the genuineness of the order dated 17.1.1992 on the ground that after cancellation of the notification of consolidation, the order is not sustainable and as such the entry in the revenue record may be restored prior to the order dated 17.1.1992.
Without interfering in the merit of the matter and adjudicating the controversy as assailed by the respondents, the Court passed an order on 9.5.2016 which is as under:
"Heard Sri Janardan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondent no. 3 to follow and implement the final orders passed by the Consolidation Officer before the cancellation of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act for the consolidation in view of the finality attached the such order under Section 6(2) of the Act.
The area was brought under consolidation vide notification dated 01.10.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Act. The said notification was cancelled by notification dated 25.06.2012 issued under Section 6 of the Act. In the meantime, the Consolidation Officer had passed orders for the correction of the land records.
Section 6(2) of the Act provides that after the notification issued under Section 4 is cancelled under Section 6 of the Act, the land ceases to be under consolidation operation with effect from the date of cancellation, but the final orders relating to land records passed on or before such date of cancellation are saved.
It means any order, for the correction of the land records, passed by the consolidation authorities which have attained finality on account of not filing any appeal or revision against the same is to be implemented by the revenue authorities.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent no. 3 to verify the genuineness of the orders sought to be implemented by the petitioners and in case they are found to be genuine and final, he shall ensure that the same are implemented and the correction in the revenue records is made accordingly as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order."
After receiving the order dated 9.5.2016, passed by this Court, the respondent no. 4 without affording the opportunity to the affected opposite parties corrected the revenue entries vide order dated 11.8.2016. in view of the order passed by this Court vide judgment dated 09.5.2016.
It is the case of the petitioner that after receiving the knowledge of the entry dated 11.8.2016 he made several representations before several authorities and preferred a case under Section 32/38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, before the respondent no. 4 dated 12.1.2020.
On the precise query as made before the learned counsel for the petitioner that what is the number which has been registered at the time of filing the application dated 12.1.2020, the same has not been replied properly and along with the same the information of the counsel for the petitioner that the records are not available and as such the same has not been adjudicated properly by the respondent no. 4.
Be that as it may, without interfering in the merits of the matter, it is hereby direct the respondent no. 4 to decide the pending application if any under Section 32/38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, if records in case and filed by the petitioner application is not available the petitioner is at liberty to move a fresh application under Section 32/38 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006, the same shall be decided within a period of 8 months.
The writ petition is hereby disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 8.2.2023
Shaswat
