Muneshwari vs Collector/D.D.C. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 27605 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193449
 
Reserved on 25.09.2023
 
Delivered on 09.10.2023
 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
***
 
Court No. 48
 
***
 
Case :- WRIT - B No. -   13870 of 2004
 
Muneshwari				      ........	                   		    Petitioner
 
				          Through :- Sri I.N. Singh, Rakesh Singh, 										         Advocate
 
Vs.
 
D.D.C. & Others			      ........		                    Respondents
 
				              Through :- Sri A.C. Nishad,  S.C, 							                     Pradeep Kumar Rai,  Advocate 
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri I.N. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for contesting respondent and learned Standing Counsel for State.

2. The facts in brief of present case are as follows :-

(i) The land in dispute is 3 Bigha 19 biswas 0 dhur of plot No. 827 situated in village Malethi, District Ghazipur. The owner of the said plot were Dharmdeo, Bihar and Subedar, all sons of Ram Raj.

(ii) The consolidation operations commenced and publication under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, "Act, 1953"), was issued on 02.12.1995. Subsequently, on 13.12.1996, the owners of land in dispute executed a sale-deed in favour of petitioner, a copy thereof is annexed along with supplementary counter affidavit.

(iii) The petitioner and her sons filed three objections under Section 9-A of Act, 1953, on the ground that plot No.821/1, area 1 bigha 3 biswa and 8 dhur was purchased by them and since said land is uncultivated and adjacent to roadside, therefore, being commercial in nature may not be included in consolidation operations.

(iv) The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 18.10.1997 allowed objections filed by petitioners and held that the gata No.827/1, area 1 bigha 3 biswa and 8 dhur, was affected with canal and being submerged under water, therefore, liable to be excluded from the consolidation proceedings. The relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter :-

"केस नं0 - 142/143+143+145 धारा 9क(2) यू.पी.सी.एच अधि०

आज पत्रावली संख्या 142, 143 व 145 एवं विविध बयान हल्फी एक साथ पेश हुई उपरोक्त सभी पत्रावली एक दूसरे से सम्बन्धित है । सभी को एक साथ एक जाई करके सुनवाई की गयी, आपत्तिकर्ता की भरत गोपाल, नितेन्द्र व श्रीमती मुनेश्वरी पत्नी पंचव व 4ख गोपाल पुत्र पंचम तथा आर्य ने आपत्ति किया है कि गाटा संख्या- 120 की मालियत 30 के बजाये 60 व 70 किया जाये श्रीमती मुनेश्वरी पत्नी पंचम 827 रकवा 1 बीघा 3 विस्वा 8धुर जो बैनामे की भूमि है चक बाहर किया जाये श्री भरत गोपाल ने आपत्ति किया है कि गाटा संख्या-152 की मालियत 20 पैसे से अधिक बढ़ाया जाये पंचम ने आपत्ति किया है कि गाटा संख्या-227/ के पाँच बिस्वा की मालियत लगायी जायें, गाम के अभिलेख का अवलोकन किया गया और पाया कि गाटा संख्या 120/1 के आस-पास की मालियत गाटा संख्या-119/, व 121 की मालियत 40 व 50 पैसा निर्धारित है उसकी तुलना में गाटा संख्या 20 की मालियत कम लगाई गयी है ।

2. गाटा संख्या-827/1, रकवा । बीघा 3 बिस्वा 8 धुर नहर से प्रभावित व जलमग्न रहता है चक बाहर होने योग्य है ।

3. गाटा संख्या-152 के आसपास के खेतों की मालियत गाटा संख्या 152 की मालियत कम लगायी गयी है ।

4- गाटा संख्या 277/1 नलकूप कार्यबन्द हो गया है। चक बाहर होना चाहिये ।

उपरोक्त विवेचना के आधार पर आदेश हुआ कि गाटा संख्या 120/1, 247प की मालियत 20 के स्थान पर 40, गाटा संख्या 827/1, रकबा 1 बीघा 3 बिस्वा 8धूर चक बाहर व गाटा संख्या 152 की मालियत 20 पैसा के स्थान पर 30 पैसा व गाटा सं० 277/2 रकवा 5 विस्वा चक बाहर के स्थान पर मालियत 60 पैसा दर्ज हो आदेश वाद संख्या - 142, 143, 145, पर भी लागू होना पत्रावली दाखिल दफ्तर हो।"

(Emphasis Supplied)

(v) The respondents herein being aggrieved by above order filed a belated appeal (i.e. after four years) mainly on ground that, in case, land in dispute was directed to be excluded from consolidation proceedings, passage to their chak would be affected. The relevant paragraphs of memo of appeal are reproduced hereinafter :-

" दफा - 2 यह कि गाटा संख्या-827 के सभी बही की मालियत लगायी गयी है। तथा गाटा संख्या- 827/9 की मालियत न लगाकर चकबन्दी बाहर करने का अधिनस्थ न्यायालय का आदेश चकबन्दी बाहर करने का अधिनस्थ न्यायालय का आदेश चकबन्दी प्राविधान के नियमों के विरूद्ध तथा औद्योगित गैर कानूनी तथा हर हालत मे निरस्त होने योग्य है।

दफा- 3 यह कि गाटा संख्या- 827/9 को चक बाहर करने से हम अपील कर्ता गण का रास्ता प्रभावित होगा। क्योंकि गाटा संख्या 827 , 287/9 , 828 के दक्षिण तरफ नहर विभाग की कालोनी बनी है। जो चाहर दिवारी से घिरी है। क्या उनसे सटा मौजा, बदुपुर है। तथा क्रय सभी बही एवं उसके अगल बगल के सभी नम्बरों की मालियत लगायी गयी है। तथा वहां एक गाटा 287/9- /11/38 चकबन्दी बाहर करने का कोई चकबन्दी प्राविधान के अन्तर्गत कोई कारण नहीं है। सिर्फ विपक्षनी को नाजायज लाभ देने के लिए अधीनस्थ न्यायालय द्वारा गलत आदेश पारित किया गया है। उसे हर हालत में निरस्त होने योग्य है। क्योंकि गाटा संख्या 827/1 को चक बाहर करने को अपील अन्तर्गत का चक एवं रास्ता प्रभावित हो रहा है। तथा अधिकरण न्यायालय का आदेश कानून के विपरीत एवं हर हालत में निरस्त होने योग्य है।"

(Emphasis Supplied)

(vi) The Settlement Officer Consolidation after considering rival submissions, dismissed the appeal by an order dated 29.3.2003, mainly on ground that there was no sufficient cause to condone delay of four years as well as the respondents failed to prove that in case, land in dispute was to be excluded from the consolidation proceedings, it would affect passage to their land. The relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter :-

" अपीलकर्तागण का यह कथन है कि चकबन्दी प्राविधान के अन्तर्गत जोतने बोने योग्य भूमि को चक बाहर करने को कोई प्राविधान नहीं है। जहां तक सड़क के किनारे कामर्शियल भूमि होने का प्रश्न है, मूल खातेदार बासू आदि के लिये यह भूमि कामर्शियल नहीं थी और जब इस भूमि का बैनामा मुनेश्वरी ने ले लिया तो यह भूमि व्यवसायिक महत्व की हो गई और चकबन्दी अधिकारी ने मुनेसरी को नाजायज लाभ पहुचाने के लिये इस भूमि को चकबन्दी बाहर कर दिया है। अपीलकर्तागण के इस कथन में बल नहीं पाया जाता है क्योंकि सड़क के किनारे की भूमि चाहे वह जोती बोई जाती हो अथवा नहीं को चकबन्दी बाहर करने का प्राविधान है क्योंकि सड़क के किनारे होने से उसका व्यवसायिक महत्व रहता है। इस प्रकार चकबंदी अधिकारी ने इस भूमि को चकबन्दी बाहर करके गलती नहीं किया है अपीलकर्तागण का यह कथन कि गाटा संख्या 827/1 को चकबन्दी बाहर करने के रास्ता प्रभावित होगा, गलत है क्योंकि उनके चक पर आने-जाने के लिये उत्तर से चकरोड दिया गया है जो पक्की सड़क से लगा हुआ है। जहां तक अपील में विलम्ब की छूट देने का प्रश्न है, इस सम्बन्ध में दिये गये प्रार्थना पत्र का प्रतिवादी उत्तर वादिनी की तरफ से प्रतिशपथ आपत्ति प्रस्तुत करके किया गया है। अपील लगभग चार साल विलम्ब से दाखिल की गई है। जिसका कोई औचित्य प्रतीत नहीं होता है। अतः अपील में विलम्ब का जो कारण दिया गया है वह विश्वसनीय नहीं है और अपील में विलम्ब की छूट नहीं दी जाती है।"

(Emphasis Supplied)

(vii) In the above circumstances, the respondents preferred a revision petition before Revisional Authority mainly on following grounds :-

"1- यह कि आदेश अदालत मातहत खिलाफ कानुन व खिलाफ वाक्यात है तथा निरस्त होने योग्य है।

2- यह कि आ० नं० - 828 हम निगरानी कर्ता का सबसे बडा मूल है और यही हमारा रहन-सहन व खलिहान होता है।

3- यह कि आ० नं० - 828 से सटे पश्चिम आ० नं० -827 है। आ० नं० 827 के पूरा रकबा 999 एअर सं० च० अ० स्तर पर 40 पैसा मालियत कायम की गयी है।

4- यह कि मालियत लगाये जाने के बाद आ०नं० - 827 से 1-3-8 बीघा उत्तरवादी ने क्रय कर लिया और बैनामें के बाद मुनेसरी ने धारा 9 ब.सी.एच. एक्ट में आपत्ति किया आ०नं० -827/1 रकवा 1-3-8 बीघा की चकबन्दी क्रिया से प्रथक कर दिया क्योंकि यह नहर के पानी से जलमग्न रहता है और च०अ० ने बिना मौका देखे व बिना मौके की रिपोर्ट मंगाये व बिना अभिलेख देखे आ०नं० 827 में नया बता 827/1 कायम करके उसे चकबन्दी अधिकारी ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 18.10.97 द्वारा चकबन्दी क्रिया से प्रथक कर दिया।

5- यह कि च० अ० के आदेश दिनांक 18.10.97 के विरूद्ध हमने अपील दाखिल किया और स०व०अ०च० ने बिना तथ्य व कानून की विवेचना किए हमारी अपील की दिनांक 27.03.2003 को निरस्त कर दिया जिसके विरूद्ध यह निगरानी की जा रही है।

6- यह कि कानूनी पक्ष यह है कि क्या मुनेसरी को जिसने मालियत लगाने के बाद आराजी नेजाई का बैनामा लिया उसे आराजी नेजाई को चकबन्दी बाहर करने हेतु आपत्ति करने का अधिकार था।

7- यह कि दूसरा बिन्दू यह पैदा होता है कि क्या च०अ० धारा 9 ब.सी.एच.एक्ट में किसी गाटे की चकबन्दी बाहर करने का आदेश पारित कर सकते है।

8- यह कि तीसरा बिन्दु यह पैदा होता है कि क्या आ० नं० -827 की उक्त बटे में बाग या आबादी या अन्य कोई ऐसी समुन्नती स्थित है जिसके कारण उसे चकबन्दी बाहर किया जाये।

9- यह कि इन तीनों बिन्दुओ पर च०अ०व स० व अ०च० ने बिना गौर किए आदेश पारित करके सरीही भूल किया है।

10- यह कि आ०नं०-827 का पूरा रकवा 3-19-0 जिसमें बटवारे का अथवा बंटा कायम करने का कोई आदेश स०च०अ० व च०अ० ने नहीं पारित किया है और आकार पत्र 2क में कोई भी बटा कायम नहीं है तथा पूरे रकवे की मालियत लगी है तो तथा मालियत लगे रकवे का बैनामा सुनेसरी में लिया है। बैनामा के पूर्व आराजी नेजाई की जो स्थित थी उसी का मालिक मुनेसरी हुई उसे चकबन्दी क्रिया से पृथक कराने का अधिकार प्राप्त नहीं हुआ क्योंकि जब मालियत लगी और धारा 5सी.एच ऐक्ट का वितरण हुआ उसके 21 दिन के अन्दर मूल खाते आपत्ति कर सकता है कवाले दार नहीं और 21 दिन समाप्त होने के बाद जब अधिकार बैनामे के आधार पर मिलता है तो वह कर्ता चकबन्दी क्रिया से पृथक करने के लिए आपत्ति नहीं कर सकता है।

11- यह कि मूल्यांकन लगाने व चकबन्दी क्रिया से पृथक करने की आपत्ति धारा 3अ{2} मे होती है। धारा 9 {ब} में नहीं होती हैं इस प्रकार भी सी.ओ. का आदेश क्षेत्राधिकार से बाहर है।

12- यह कि और विनाय पर च०अ० आदेश दिनांक 18.10.97 व आदेश स०व०अ०च० दि० 27.03.2003 निरस्त होने योग्य है।"

(viii) The Revisional Authority vide an order dated 15.07.2003 allowed the revision petition filed by respondent and impugned orders therein passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation were set aside. The relevant part of order is reproduced hereinafter :-

" पक्षों के तर्कों के सापेक्ष पत्रावली का पुनः अवलोकन किया गया। मुनेसर ने दिनांक 14.08.96 को गाटा सं० - 827 रकबा 1-19-0 मे से रकबा 1-3-8 को चकबन्दी क्रिया से पृथक करने हेतु आपत्ति प्रस्तुत किया है जिस पर चकबन्दी अधिकारी ने न तो रिपोर्ट मांगा है और स्वयं स्थल निरीक्षण किया है, बल्कि गैर जिम्मेदाराना ढंग से आपत्ति के आधार का बिना अवलोकन किये आराजी निजाई को नहर से प्रभावित मानकर चक बाहर कर दिया है मुनेसरी की आपत्ति में मांग किया गया है कि आबादी बनाने हेतु आ०नं० 827 में से 1-3-8 का बैनामा लिया है अतः उसे चक बाहर किया जाये। आपत्ति में लिखा गया आधार किसी भूमि को चकबन्दी क्रिया से पृथक करने का आधार नहीं है। चकबन्दी क्रिया से पृथक करने का आधार केवल एक ही है कि उक्त भूमि आकृषिक हो, अर्थात उसमें कृषि किया जाना सम्भव हो। बहस के दौरान दोनो पक्षों ने स्वीकार किया कि आ०नं० -827 नहर से काफी दूर है, जलप्लावित नहीं है। आपत्ति कर्ता मुनेसरी की आपत्ति पर भी ध्यान दिया जाये कि उसने मकान बनाने हेतु भूमि क्रय किया है, निश्चित रूप से कोई व्यक्ति जलप्लावित भूमि में मकान नहीं बनाना चाहेगा। चकबन्दी अधिकारी का आदेश विधिविरूद्ध तथा मौके के विरूद्ध है। सहायक बन्दोबस्त अधिकारी चकबन्दी ने निगरानी कर्ता के तर्क व चकबन्दी अधिकारी के आदेश एवं मुनेसरी की आपत्ति पर ध्यान दिये बिना एवं उपलब्ध अभिलेखों पर ध्यान दिये बना आदेश पारित किया है। जो कायम रखने योग्य नहीं है। निगरानी में बल है।"

(Emphasis Supplied)

(ix) The petitioner herein being aggrieved, filed a restoration application before Revisional Authority on 24.7.2003, however, the same was dismissed by an order dated 14.8.2003 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter :-

" मैने पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध अपीलीय न्यायालय के निर्णय दिनांक 27.03.2003 और इस न्यायालय के निर्मय दिनांक 15.07.2003 का पुनरीक्षण किया। सहायक बन्दोबस्त अधिकारी चकबन्दी के निर्णय दिनांक 27.03.2003 मे अपील का निस्तारण पूर्ण विवेचना के आधार पर किया गया है जो गुण-दोष पर आधारित है और गुण - दोष के आधार पर विवेचना करने के उपरान्त अंतिम पक्तियों में मियाद के बिन्दु को विवेचित किया है। और अपील की मियाद और गुण दोष दोनों आधार पर निरस्त किया है।

मियाद का बिन्दु एक ऐसा बिन्दु है जिसको उठाये जाने की दशा उसका प्रथमतः विवेचना उपेक्षित होता है। क्योंकि जब एक बार मियाद का बिन्दु उठ गया तो बिना मियाद का लाभ दिये गुण- दोष पर विवेचना और आदेश पारित नहीं किया जा सकता है। ऐसा नहीं हो सकता है। कि मियाद का लाभ भी न दिया जाय और गुण-दोष पर विवेचना और निर्णय भी दिया जाय़। मियाद का बिन्दु वह द्वार है जिससे होकर गुण दोष की विवेचना का क्रम न्यायिक निर्णय के परिसर में प्रवेश पाता है किन्तु यदि एक बार गुण दोष के आधार पर निर्णीत हो गया तो मियाद के बिन्दु पर लाभ मिलने का तथ्य उसमें स्वतः अनुस्यत हो जाता है भले ही उक्त बिन्दु पर निर्णय शान्त हो अथवा विपरीत है। अपीलीय निर्मय दिनांक 27.03.2003 में अपील को सम्पूर्णतः गुण दोष पर विवेचित किया गया है अतः विलम्ब भर्षण का बिन्दु इसमें सकारात्मक रूप से अनुस्यूत माना जायेगा। अपीलीय न्यायालय का विलम्ब भाग के बिन्दु पर पारित आदेश नकारात्मक और उनके गुण दोष पर पारित आदेशो का अंत विरोधी है। अतः प्रभावहीन है। चूँकि अपील गुण दोष पर निरस्तारित है और मियाद का लाभ सकारात्मक रूप से अनुस्यूत है अतः इस न्यायालय में निगरानी मियाद के अन्दर प्रस्तुत की गयी थी और निगरानी कर्ता द्वारा मियाद का लाभ भी नही मांगा गया था। इसके अतिरिक्त चूंकि इस न्यायालय में निगरानी का निस्तारण गुण दोष के आधार पर किया गया है अतः मियाद के बिन्दु पर आदेश शान्त होने के अनुक्रम में यह तथ्य पूवकल्पित (प्रीज्यूम्ड) है कि मियाद के बिन्दु पर सकारात्मक निर्णय लेने के उपरान्त ही यह न्यायालय गुण दोष की विवेचना में प्रवृत्त हुआ।

जहां तक मूल्यांकित भूमि पर मुनेश्वरी को चेक प्रदिष्ट करने के सम्बन्ध मे निर्देश देने का प्रश्न है, इस सम्बन्ध में चकबन्दी अधिनियम व मैनुअल में स्पष्ट प्राविधान है। चैक प्रविष्टीकरण के सम्बन्ध में सम्बन्धित सहायक चकबन्दी अधिकारी इस बिन्दु पर विधि के अनुक्रम में विचारण करेंगे।

पुनर्विचार प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक24.07.2003उपरोक्तानुसार निस्तारित किया जाता है।"

(Emphasis Supplied)

(x) The petitioner filed a second restoration application dated 21.8.2003 with an application for interim relief. The Deputy Director of Consolidation granted interim order on aforesaid application. At this stage the respondents have preferred a writ petition bearing No.7675 of 2004 mainly on ground that second review application was not maintainable. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 25.2.2004 with the direction that Deputy Director of Consolidation will first decide the maintainability of review application before proceeding to decide the revision on merit. The relevant part of order is reproduced hereinafter :-

"It is submitted that a review application against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 15.07.2003 was dismissed on 14.08.2003 but a second review application which according to the petitioner is not maintainable was filed by respondent no.3 on which an injunction order has been passed in the circumstances, it is open to the petitioner to take this objection in regard to the maintainability before the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself from the review application filed by the respondents it appears that objection to the jurisdiction of Deputy Director of Consolidation has been taken. Without expressing any opinion on merits of this case, if such an objection is taken by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of consolidation, the Deputy Director of consolidation will first decide the maintainability of the review application before proceeding to decide the revision on merits.

With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of."

(Emphasis Supplied)

(xi) In above circumstances, the Revisional Authority proceeded to consider the second review/restoration application and held that the order dated 15.7.2003 passed by earlier Presiding Officer was beyond jurisdiction since on 15.7.2003 he was not acting as a Deputy Director of Consolidation as jurisdiction was transferred to other Officer and it was held that revision petition has to be heard afresh on merit.

(xii) In the aforesaid circumstances, the Revisional Authority heard the counsel for parties afresh and by assuming the power under Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act allowed the revision petition by order dated 27.3.2004 and set aside the impugned orders therein dated 18.7.1997 passed by Consolidation Officer as well as order dated 27.3.2003 passed by Appellate Authority. The relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter :-

" 2- निगरानी के निगरानीकर्तागण रमेश आदि द्वारा नियम 65ए {1} के अंतर्गत प्रस्तुत, प्रार्थना पत्र पर पक्षों को सुनने के बाद यह पत्रावली इस न्यायालय में रिकाल की गयी है पुनर्स्थापन प्रार्थना पत्र तथा निगरानी पर पक्षों के विद्वान अधिवक्तागणों को विस्तार पूर्वक सुना गया।

x x x x x x

6- निगरानी संख्या 1081 सहायक बंदोबस्त अधिकारी, चकबंदी द्वारा अपील सं0 182 धारा 11(1) उ0 प्र0 जोत चकबंदी अधिनियम 1953 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 27-07-2003 के विरुद्ध प्रस्तुत की गयी है जिसके द्वारा उन्होंने केशव प्रसाद आदि की अपील जो चकबंदी अधिकारी द्वारा धारा 9बी के अंतर्गत पारित आदेश दिनांक 18-10-97 के विरुद्ध प्रस्तुत की गयीं थीं को निरस्त कर दिया था निगरानी में यह आधार लिया गया है कि भूखण्ड संख्या 828 निगरानीकर्तागण का सबसे बड़ा भूखण्ड है जहाँ उसका रहन सहन व खलिहान होता है। इसी भूखण्ड से सटे पश्चिम भूखण्ड संख्या 827 क्षेत्रफल 0.999हे० का विनिमय अनुपात सहायक चकबंदी अधिकारी के स्तर पर 40 पैसे लगाया गया है। बाद में भूखण्ड संख्या 827 का 0-03-08 बीघा क्षेत्रफल मुनेश्वरी देवीं स्त्री पंचम द्वारा क्रय करने के बाद विपक्षी न अधिनियम की धारा 9बी के अंतर्गत आपत्ति प्रस्तुत कर उक्त क्षेत्रफल को चकबंदी क्रियाओं से पृथक किए जाने का अनुरोध इस आधार पर किया गया कि यह भाग नहर के पानी से जलमग्न रहा है और चकबंदी अधिकारी ने बिना मौका देखे और स्थल निरीक्षण किये भूखण्ड संख्या 827 में नया उप संख्या 827/1 कायम करके दिनांक 18-10-97 के आदेश द्वारा चकबंदी क्रियाओं से पृथक कर दिया है जिसके विरुद्ध निगरानीकर्ताओं की अपील आक्षिप्त आदेश दिनांक 27-03-2003 को बिना विधि की विवेचना किये निरस्त कर दी गयी है। यह भी तर्क प्रस्तुत किया गया है कि विपक्षी मुनेश्वरी को जिसने विनिमय अनुपात लगाने के बाद भूखण्ड संख्या 827 का बैनामा लिया है, से, क्रय किए गये क्षेत्रफल को चकबंदी क्रियाओं से बाहर किए जाने का अधिकार है अथवा नहीं क्या चकबंदी अधिनियम की धारा 9बी के अंतर्गत किस भूखण्ड को चकबंदी क्रियाओं से पृथक करने का आदेश पारित करने का अधिकार है अथवा नहीं तथा प्रश्नगत भूखण्ड का पूरा क्षेत्रफल 3-19-0 में उपखण्ड कायम कर विपक्षी सं0 2 मुनेश्वरी के पक्ष 01-03-08 का नया भूखण्ड कायम किया जा सकता था अथवा नही, पर विधिक निष्कर्ष निकाले जाने की आवश्यकता है। ।

6- विपक्षी संख्या 2 के विद्वान अधिवक्ता का तर्क है कि भूखण्ड संख्या 827 का 01-03-08 बीघा क्षेत्रफल उसको क्रय किया है जो सड़क के किनारे स्थित है। अतः इसकी वाणिज्यिक उपयोगिता होने के कारण उसने चकबंदी अधिकारी के समक्ष इस क्षेत्रफल को सी०एच०18 किए जाने का अनुरोध किया था जिसे चकबंदी अधिकारी ने स्थल निरीक्षण कराकर स्वीकार कर लिया है।

x x x x x x

10- अधिनियम की धारा 9 में यह उपबंधित है कि धारा 8 तथा धारा 8क में उल्लिखित अभिलेखों को प्रकाशित कराकर आपत्तियां आमंत्रित किये जाने के लिए नोटिस जारी की जायेगी । धारा 9 (2) के अंतर्गत कोई व्यक्ति जिसे धारा 9(1) के अधीन नोटिस भेजी गयी हो 21 दिन के अंदर सहायक चकबंदी अधिकारी के समक्ष आपत्ति प्रस्तुत कर सकता है जिसमें अभिलेखों एवं उसमें से लिए गये उद्धरणों की प्रविष्टियों की शुद्धता अथवा उनके प्रकार के सम्बंध में एवं सिद्धांतो के विवरण पत्र के सम्बंध में एवं विभाजन की आवश्यकता के सम्बंध में आपत्ति की जा सकती है। धारा 9क (2) के अंतर्गत गाटों के मूल्यांकन से सम्बंधित सभी मामले तथा वे सभी मामले, जिनके सम्बंध पेड़ों, कुओं तथा अन्य सम्पत्तियों का प्रतिकर आंकलित करने के लिए उनका मूल्यांकन तथा यदि एक से अधिक स्वामी हो, तो उसको सह स्वामियों में अविभाजित करने के सम्बंध में चकबंदी अधिकारी को भेजे जायेंगे जो उनका निस्तारण नियत रीति से करेगा ।

11- अधिनियम की उपरोक्त योजना से स्पष्ट है कि मूल्यांकन/ विनिमय अनुपात के सम्बंध में धारा 9-क (2) के अंतर्गत ही आपत्तियां प्रस्तुत की जा सकेगी परन्तु चकबंदी अधिकारी के समक्ष विपक्षी संख्या 2 द्वारा प्रस्तुत आपत्ति बाद के प्रक्रम पर धारा 9ख (2) के अंतर्गत प्रस्तुत की गयीं थी जिस यह उपबंधित है कि यदि सिद्धांतो के विरुद्ध धारा 9 में नियत समय के भीतर कोई आपत्ति प्रस्तु न की गयी हो तो उसके शुद्धता की परीक्षण करने की दृष्टि से चकबंदी अधिकारी चकबंदी समिति को उचित सूचना देने के पश्चात् कटक का स्थलीय निरीक्षण करेगा और तत्पश्चात् सिद्धांतो विवरण पत्र में आवश्यकतानुसार परिस्कार एवं परिवर्तन कर सकता है ।

12- इस प्रकरण में भूखण्ड सं0 827 पड़ताल के समय जो मौके पर कृषिक क्षेत्रफल पाया गया था के विरुद्ध धारा 9क(2) के अंतर्गत कोई आपत्ति प्रस्तुत नहीं की गयी थीं। विपक्षी संख्या 2 द्वारा बाद में उक्त भूखण्ड का 01-03-08 बीघा क्षेत्रफल क्रय किया गया है और उसके द्वारा आधार पर उक्त क्षेत्रफल को चकबंदी से बाहर किये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है कि यह भूमि नहर से जलमग्न होने के कारण प्रभावित होती है जबकि विपक्षी द्वारा आपत्ति में यह कहा गया कि आबादी बनाने हेतु उसने उक्त भूमि को क्रय किया है। स्पष्ट है कि चकबंदी अधिकारी द्वारा अधिनियम के प्राविधानों के अंतर्गत दिनांक 18-10-97 का आदेश पारित नहीं किया है और विपक्षी सं0 2 की आपत्ति को विधिक उपबंधों से परे स्वीकत कर लिया गया है। उल्लेखनीय है कि विपक्षी संख्या 2 द्वारा भूखण्ड संख्या 827 के कुल क्षेत्रफल 03-19-0 में से केवल 01-03-08 बीघा क्षेत्रफल क्रय किया गया है जिसका स्थल पर विभाजन भी नहीं किया जा सकता है। ऐसी दशा में भूखण्ड संख्या 827 का कौन सा भाग सी0एच0 18 किया जाय भी विनिश्चित नहीं किया जा सकता है । विपक्षी संख्या 2 विक्रय पत्र के आधार पर भूखण्ड संख्या 827 में अन्य कास्तकारों के साथ सह खातेदार हो गया है। अतः भूखण्ड संख्या 827 का नया उपखण्ड भी कायम नही किया जा सकता था ।

13- उपरोक्त से स्पर्षवपरीत भूखण्ड संख्या 827 का उप खण्ड संख्या 9 कायम कर 01-03-08 बीघा क्षेत्रफल को सी०एच० 18 किया गया है। अपील न्यायालय द्वारा इन सभी बिन्दुओं पर बिना कोई विचार किए अपील निरस्त की गयी है । उपरोक्त कारणों से मै इस प्रकरण को धारा 48 की उप धारा 3 के अंतर्गत संज्ञान में लेते हुए चकबंदी अधिकारियों द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 18.07.1997 तथा भूखण्ड संख्या 827 का उपखण्ड संख्या 1 कायम करने सम्बंधी आदेश निरस्त किया जाता है।

14- उपरोक्तानुसार निगरानी स्वीकार की जाती है। अपील न्यायालय का आक्षिप्त आदेश दिनांक 27.03.2003 तथा चकबंदी अधिकारी का आदेश दिनांक 18.07.1997 अपास्त किया जाता है। तद्नुसार अभिलेखों में संशोधन की कार्यवाही की जायेगी। "

(Emphasis Supplied)

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent was not an aggrieved or interested party to proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, therefore, he had no locus to file an appeal or revision petition and in this regard. He placed reliance on a judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ram Sakal and others Vs. Sheo Pal and others, 2019 6 ADJ 103 and relevant paragraph Nos.26 and 27 thereof are mentioned hereinafter :-

"26. In light of the above discussion, the phrase 'person interested' used in Section 9 of the Act, 1953 has to be read as person having a vested right in the holding and not some contingent right which may arise in future.

27. It is evident that during the lieftime of Sheopal, respondent No. 2 had no vested right in the disputed property and no interest in the holdings which he could have defended or protected and therefore respondent No. 2 was not a person interested under Section 9 of the Act, 1953. Therefore theobjections of respondent No. 2 registering Case No. 72/310 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 were not maintainable. At this stage it would be relevant to refer to the observations of this Court in Kanhaiya Lal (Supra) in paragraph No. 23 :

''23. Now the question about the locus sandi of an objector under Sec. 9 is a question which affects the very jurisdiction of the Consolidation Officer to proceed in the matter. It is only at the instance of an interested part that he can proceed to dispose of the controversy. If a party is not an interested party then no objection can be entertained under Sec. 9 at his instance. It will be strange if at the instance of a complete stranger the name of the existing tenure holder is removed and the name of another person is mutated even though the latter has himself not filed any objection. In the present case even though Rani Vishwa Kumari Devi did not claim any right with respect to the plots in question, still, her name has been directed to be entered as bhumidhar of the plots in question at the instance of a complete stranger i.e. Lal Pratap Bahadur Singh. Apart from the language of Se. 9 which speaks of a 'person interested', in general law such a course is not permissible. It will be almost compelling a person to be mutated as a tenure holder even though he may not be willing to do so. In being entered as a tenure holder certain liabilities will also come into existence. The recorded tenure holder will be bound to pay the dues of the State in respect of the plots in question. It is inconceivable that a party can be compelled to be subject to such liabilities at the instance of a rank stranger who has no interest in the plots in question and as such who has no locus standi to file objections. All these considerations lead to the conclusion that before the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Officer can be invoked under Section 9. the objector must be a person interested and only then he will have a locus standi to file objection on the basis of which the Consolidation Officer will proceed to decide the controversy between the parties. If the objections are filed at the instance of a rank stranger, the Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction to act in the matter and to direct the name of the recorded tenure holder to be elected."

4. Learned counsel has further submitted that main ground on which appeal was filed that in case, land in dispute was excluded from consolidation proceedings, passage of respondents to their land would be disturbed, which was rejected by the Appellate Court as well as Revisional Court, however, the Revisional court has considered case on a different issue and passed order on assumption that since the land in dispute was purchased by petitioner for the purpose of construction of his house, therefore, the land could not be submerged under water. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner has referred relevant part of impugned order as well as memo of appeal and revision.

5. The aforesaid submissions are opposed by learned counsel for contesting respondents and he submitted that since the petitioner has purchased the land in dispute after the publication under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and since no objection was filed by original tenant holder, the petitioner being vendee has no legal ground to file objection regarding certain portion of land in dispute to chak-out. The respondent has a locus to file an appeal and revision as he was affected by order of chak-out since his land was adjacent to land in dispute.

6. Learned counsel for contesting respondent has also pointed out that it was admitted case before the Revisional Authority that land in dispute was not submerged under water.

7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for petitioner submits that there are contrary findings of Revisional Authority in regard whether the land in dispute was a submerged land or not.

8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. In the present case following facts are not much in dispute since they are based on material on record :-

(i) Valuation of Gata No. 827/.999 was determined by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 13.2.1995 (Annexure No.1 of II Supplementary Counter Affidavit).

(ii) Notification under Section 9 of Act of 1953 in regard to concerned village was issued on 2.12.1995 (Annexure No.2 of II Supplementary Counter Affidavit).

(iii) Recorded tenure holders as mentioned in basic year have never submitted any objection in regard to the valuation of referred land.

(iv) Dharmdeo, Bihar and Subedar sons of Late Ram Raj have executed a registered sale-deed dated 13.12.1996 in favour of Smt. Muneshvari Devi wife of Pancham of plot No.827 area 1 Bigha 13 Biswa 8 dhur. In the citation of aforesaid sale deed, nature of land i.e. being submerged in water or not fit for agriculture was not disclosed rather it was mentioned that 'उक्त भूमिखण्ड सड़क व आबादी से 1 किलोमीटर दूर स्थित है' i.e. it was not disclosed that land has commercial value or was purchased for abadi (see Annexure No.3 of II Supplementary Counter Affidavit).

(v) The petitioner (vendee), at a belated stage on 14.08.1996 filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of Act of 1953, stating that land in dispute was a non-agricultural land and it was wrongly valued and it was purchased for abadi, therefore, it may be chak-out from consolidation proceedings. Land in dispute was a submerged land was not raised as a ground in objection. The objection was not accompanied with any application for condonation of delay, even though it was filed beyond limitation period of 21 days as prescribed under Section 9(2) of Act of 1953. (see Annexure No.4 of II Supplementary Counter Affidavit).

(vi) The Consolidation Officer has considered above referred objection under Section 9-B of Act of 1953 and by order dated 18.10.1997 directed that land in dispute (Gata No.827/1, Rakba 1 Bigha 3 Biswa 8 Dhur) shall be chak-out from consolidation proceedings being affected from canal and submerged in water. The order does not indicate that any spot inspection was conducted and order was passed only on basis of bare objection and perusal of records of village. (see Annexure No.3 of writ petition).

(vii) The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein were not party before the Consolidation Officer, still they filed an appeal after four years before the Settlement Officer Consolidation to challenge order dated 18.10.1997, mainly on ground that impugned order was passed contrary to law and due to order of chak-out, passage to their chak (adjacent to chak in question) would be affected since their chak was surrounded by a canal colony, having boundary and that all surrounding chaks were valued during consolidation proceedings including land under other bainamas.

(viii) The Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed the appeal both on delay and on merit on ground that no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay of four years and any land adjacent to road whether agricultural or non-agricultural was liable to be chak-out. The reason given by Appellate Authority was different from reason given by Consolidation Officer that land in dispute was submerged. The Appellate Authority failed to take note that in objection, petitioner has mentioned that land in dispute was one k.m. away from road and abadi.

(ix) The contesting respondents preferred a revision petition inter alia on various grounds which are extracted in paragraph 2(vii) of this judgment. The Revisional Authority allowed the revision by order dated 15.07.2003 and order of chak-out as well as order passed by Appellate Authority was set aside. The Authority took note of admission of both parties that land in dispute is far away from canal and it was not a submerged land. The reason for chak-out that land was non-agricultural was found to be incorrect.

(x) The petitioner filed a restoration application against order dated 15.07.2003 but it was dismissed by a reasoned order dated 14.8.2003, by the Revisional Authority. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a second restoration application, which was heard and an interim order was passed. Meanwhile respondents have approached this Court and their writ petition was disposed of by order dated 25.2.2004 with observation that issue of maintainability would also be considered by concerned Authority.

(xi) Thereafter the Revisional Authority had set aside order dated 15.7.2003 on the ground of being passed beyond jurisdiction since at relevant time jurisdiction was with other Officer. Thereafter the Revisional Authority has heard the revision afresh.

(xii) The Revisional Authority by impugned order dated 27.3.2004 allowed the revision petition filed by respondent and set aside orders passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation, the said order is assailed before this Court by way of present writ petition.

(xiii) The Revisional Authority, in impugned order has considered the scheme of consolidation under the Act of 1953 that records and statements of principles were prepared and published under Section 8 and 8-A of Act of 1953, thereafter, objections to it were invited by issuing notice under Section 9 of Act of 1953 and objections filed there upon would be considered under Section 9-A of Act of 1953 and since in present case no objection was filed to inspection report and scheme, therefore, belated objections ought to have been considered only after due process, such as spot inspection, identification of exact land in dispute as well as to mention a reason to take a contrary view that land was wrongly found to be agricultural during inspection and in records prepared during consolidation proceedings.

10. In background of above details, the Court now proceed to consider oral submissions. The first issue is in regard to locus or competency of respondents to challenge the order of chak-out. The counsel for petitioner has referred order passed by Appellate Authority that reason alleged by respondents that due to order of chak-out passage to their chak would be effected was specifically rejected. In support of submission that respondents would not fall under 'interested person', the counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Ram Sakal (supra) which is related to stage of objection filed under Section 9 of Act of 1953, whereas in present case the issue of locus would be considered keeping in mind that respondents came into picture, when they file an appeal against the order passed for chak-out of land in dispute. Therefore, in a case where the person was able to show that order of chak-out of land would adversely affect his rights, he would have locus to challenge the order.

11. In the present case, respondents have alleged that order of chak-out would affect passage of their land. In my opinion it was as valid ground for respondents to file appeal and, therefore, they have a locus to file an appeal. Since respondents/appellants have failed to prove their above referred claim, therefore, the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal on merit. In Ram Sakal (supra) a co-ordinate Bench has held that a person who has some contingent right in the holding which may arise in future would not fall under 'interested person', whereas in present case, the case set up by respondents was that due to chak-out, he would be in adverse position, therefore, he had locus to file an appeal, though on merit they failed to substantiate their claim, though it was not disputed that their land was near to land in dispute, therefore, they were not rank strangers.

12. The next issue to be considered is whether the Revisional Authority has erred in deciding the revision petition filed by respondents on absolutely different grounds and wrongly scrutinized the order of chak-out on merit, without referring the claim of respondent that order of chak-out had prejudice them and whether, the Revisional Authority has erroneously exercised powers under Section 48 (3) of Act of 1953 and whether due procedure to pass an order to chak-out a land from consolidation proceedings was followed or not?

13. In order to consider above issue, firstly this Court have to consider power and jurisdiction of the Revisional Authority provided under Section 48 of Act of 1953.

14. Section 48 of Act of 1953 is extracted hereinafter :-

"48. Revision and reference. - (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order] [other than an interlocutory order] passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit.

(2) Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub-section (3).

(3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1).

Explanation. - (1) - For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation.

Explanation (2) - For the purposes of this section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceeding, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding.

Explanation (3). - The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence."

15. From the bare perusal of above referred provisions, it would be evident that Revisional Authority may call and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings undertaken by any subordinate authority for purpose of satisfying himself as to regularity of the proceedings or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than an interlocutory order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings. Further explanation (3) to Section explains that Revisional Authority has power to examine any findng whether of facts or law recorded by any subordinate authority, which also includes power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence.

16. The above details would be sufficient to hold that a Revisional Authority under Act of 1953 has very wide power, which includes power to examine orders passed by any subordinate authority in terms of its correctness, legality or propriety.

17. In present case, the Revisional Authority has examined impugned orders i.e. order passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation on anvil of its correctness, legality or propriety.

18. In the impugned order, the Revisional Authority has referred scheme of consolidation at stage of preparation of record and of consolidation scheme and process of filing and consideration of objection to it. Relevant Sections 8, 8A, 9 and 9A of Act of 1953 are reproduced hereinafter :-

"8. Revision of the field-book and the current annual register; determination of valuations and shares in joint holdings. - (1) Upon the revision of the maps under Section 7, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, and in such manner as may be prescribed, cause to be -

(i) revised, the field-book of the unit after field to field partal, and the current annual register after its test and verification;

(ii) determined, in consultation with the Consolidation Committee, the valuation of -

(a) each plot after taking into consideration its productivity, location and availability of irrigation facilities, if any; and

(b) all trees, wells and other improvements existing in the plots for the purpose of calculating compensation therefor;

(iii) ascertained the share of each owner, if there be more owners than one, out of the valuation determined under sub-clause (b) of clause (ii); and

(iv) determined the shares of individual tenure-holders in joint holding for the purpose of effecting partition to ensure proper consolidation.

(2) The District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall cause to be prepared a khasra chakbandi, in the form prescribed in respect of all the plots falling in the unit as also a statement showing the mistakes] [undisputed cases of succession] and disputes discovered during the test and verification of the annual register and in the course of the field to field partal."

8-A. Preparation of Statement of Principles. - (1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall, in consultation with the Consolidation Committee, prepare, in respect of each unit under consolidation operations, a statement in the prescribed form (hereinafter called the Statement of Principles) setting forth the principles to be followed in carrying out the consolidation operations in the unit.

(2) The Statement of Principles shall also contain -

(a) details of areas, as far as they can be determined at this stage, to be earmarked for extension of abadi including areas for abadi site for Harijans and landless persons in the unit, and for such other public purposes as may be prescribed;

(b) the basis on which the tenure-holders will contribute land for extension of abadi and for other public purposes; and

(c) details of land to be earmarked for public purposes out of land vested in a Gaon Sabha or a Local Authority under Section 117 or Section 117-A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

(d) the standard plots for each unit.

(3) The standard plots referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (2) shall be determined by the Assistant Consolidation Officer after ascertaining from the members of the Consolidation Committee and the tenure-holders of the units, the best plot or plots of the unit, regard being had to productivity, location and the existing soil class of the plot or plots.

9. Issue of extracts from records and statements and publication of records mentioned in Sections 8 and 8-A and the issue of notices for inviting objections. - (1) Upon the preparation of the records and the statements mentioned in Sections 8 and 8-A, the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall -]

(a) correct the clerical mistakes, if any, and send, or cause to be sent, to the tenure-holders concerned and other persons interested, notices containing relevant extracts from the current annual register and such other records as may be prescribed showing -

(i) their rights in and liabilities in relation to the land;

(ii) mistakes, [undisputed cases of succession]and disputes discovered under Section 8 in respect thereof;

(iii) specific shares of individual tenure-holders in joint holdings for the purpose of effecting partitions, where necessary, to ensure proper consolidation;

(iv) valuation of the plots; and

(v) valuation of trees, wells and other improvements for calculating compensation therefor and its apportionment amongst owners, if there be more owners than one;

(b) publish in the unit the current khasra and the current annual register, the khasra chakbandi, the Statement of Principles prepared under Section 8-A, and any other records that may be prescribed to show, inter alia, the particulars referred to in clause (a).

(2) Any person to whom a notice under sub-section (1) has been sent, or any other person interested may, within 21 days of the receipt of notice, or of the publication under sub-section (1), as the case may be, file, before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, objections in respect thereof disputing the correctness or nature of the entries in the records or in the extracts furnished therefrom, or in the Statement of Principles, or the need for partition.

9-A. Disposal of Cases relating to claims to land and partition of joint holdings. - (1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall -

(i) where objections in respect of claims to land or partition of joint holdings are filed, after hearing the parties concerned, and

(ii) where no objections are filed after making such enquiry as he may deem necessary,

settle the disputes, correct the mistakes and effect partition as far as may be by conciliation between the parties appearing before him and pass orders on the basis of such conciliation :

Provided that where the Assistant Consolidation Officer, after making such enquiry as he may deem necessary, is satisfied that a case of succession is undisputed, he shall dispose of the case on the basis of such enquiry.

(2) All cases which are not disposed of by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under sub-section (1), all cases relating to valuation of plots and all cases relating to valuation of trees, wells or other improvements, for calculating compensation therefore, and its apportionment amongst co-owners, if there be more owners than one, shall be forwarded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer, who shall dispose of the same in the manner prescribed.

(3) The Assistant Consolidation Officer, while acting under sub-section (1) and the Consolidation Officer, while acting under sub-section (2), shall be deemed to be a Court of competent jurisdiction, anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force notwithstanding.

19. Bare perusal of above provisions would be sufficient to hold that a detail procedure was provided in above referred provisions that subsequent to revision of the field book and the current annual register, determination of valuations and shares in joint holdings would be under taken according to procedure prescribed in Section 8 of Act of 1953. Thereafter under Section 8A of Act of 1953, Statement of Principles would be prepared including details mentioned statements in said provisions.

20. Subsequently, Assistant Consolidation Officer would undertake exercise of correction of clerical mistake and for that he may issue notice under provisions of Section 9(1) of Act of 1953. Noticee or any interested person may file objection under Section 9(2) within prescribed period of 21 days.

21. The above referred provisions further provides that objections filed under Section 9(2) of Act of 1953 would be considered and would be disposed of in terms of Section 9(A)(1) or 9(A)(2), as the case may be.

22. In present case, undisputedly recorded tenure holders had not made any objection to valuation of land in dispute and sold land in dispute to petitioner; who at a belated stage, for the first time filed objection to valuation of land in dispute. Delay in filing belated objection were required to be condoned, however, no order of condonation of delay was placed on record, though Consolidation Officer has purportedly decided the objection under Section 9(A)(2) of Act of 1953.

23. As discussed above proceeding under Section 9(A) (2) are important proceedings and objections have to be considered carefully on merit and for that the Consolidation Officer has to undertake proceeding according to procedure prescribed in relevant Rule of 1954 i.e. Rule 25 and 25A. The Consolidation Officer has to peruse carefully the details of Statements of Principles, nature of land in dispute mentioned therein as well as manner of determination of its nature. The Consolidation Officer is under a legal obligation to conduct a spot inspection, if circumstances so warrant. In present case, such circumstances were in existence since, objections were filed for first time by vendee at belated stage. Admittedly, no such inspection was conducted, which would be evident from order also (see paragraph 2 (iv) of this judgment). The order passed by the Consolidation Officer was bereft of any reason and would fall under category of 'cryptic and unreasoned order'. The Consolidation Officer has simply accepted the claim of petitioner (vendee), without referring that recorded tenure holders have not filed any objection to valuation of land in dispute.

24. Above discussion would clearly indicate that the Consolidation Officer has completely given bypass to due process, therefore, order dated 18.10.1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer whereby land in dispute was directed to be chak-out from consolidation proceedings suffered with illegality and being incorrect and against propriety is unsustainable in eyes of law. In this regard Deputy Director of Consolidation has referred the scheme of consolidation, objection and consideration that it was not followed (see paragarph 2(xii) ) of this judgment). The Revisional Authority has legally exercised its power of revision as provided under Section 48 of Act of 1953, as referred in preceding paragraphs. Impugned order has survived on this account also. The factual aspect of case is also against the claim of petitioner that land in dispute was a non-agricultural land or a submerged land. Reference of spot inspection being part of impugned order would be relevant. Para 7 thereof is mentioned hereinafter :-

"7- पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध जोत चकबंदी आकार पत्र 25 के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट है कि भूखण्ड संख्या 827 का कुल क्षेत्रफल 0.9990 है जो आधार वर्ष के खाता संख्या 221 तथा 166 में बासू आदि के नाम अंकित रहा है। पड़ताल के समय सम्पूर्ण क्षेत्रफल कृषि योग्य पाये जाने के कारण इस अभिलेख के स्तम्भ 21 तथा 22 में धान तथा गेहूं की फसल पाया जाना अंकित है तथा स्तम्भ 24 में निम्न प्रविष्टि अंकित है ।"

(Emphasis Supplied)

25. Now Court has to consider whether the Revisional Authority has legally assumed power under Section 48(3) of Act of 1953. In this regard, reference of Section 48(3) would be relevant that it provides a procedure of reference that it ought to be sent by any authority subordinate to Deputy Director of Consolidation, which admittedly was not a case in hand, therefore, Deputy Director of Consolidation has erroneously assumed power under Section 48(3) of Act of 1953.

26. After referring above, I am still of opinion that since Deputy Director of Consolidation has wide powers under Section 48(1) read with its explanation No.3, that it could consider the order passed by any subordinate authority at the threshold of factors such as to the correctness, legality or propriety of order, therefore, he has rightly scrutinized the orders passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation in impugned order and returned a specific finding that those orders failed on anvil of above factors. Since power was already with the Revisional Authority under Section 48(1) of Act of 1953, therefore, there was no need to borrow power for Section 48(3) of Act of 1953. Therefore, only due to reason that Deputy Director of Consolidation has erroneously assumed power under Section 48(3) of Act of 1953, the impugned order would not be rendered illegal, and as discussed above impugned order is justified in terms of factors given in Section 48(1) of Act of 1953.

27. The argument of petitioner that since objection of respondents was not the ground to set aside order passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation, therefore, Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed illegality has also no legal basis since as referred in preceding paragraphs, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wide power under Section 48(1) of Act of 1953, even to call for and examine the record of any case. It has been discussed above that order passed by Consolidation Officer was blatantly illegal, therefore, all the arguments of petitioner are legally unsustainable.

28. In view of above discussions, present writ petition being sans merit is rejected.

29. No order as to costs.

Order Date : 09.10.2023

P. Pandey