Allahabad High Court
Jasvinder Singh vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 10 October, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195286
Court No. - 48
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 595 of 2023
Petitioner :- Jasvinder Singh
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Rampur And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aktar Ahmed Siddiqui,Mohammad Sahid
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Pandey,Arvind Srivastava Iii
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Petitioner has claimed himself to be a whistle blower and filed a belated objections in the consolidation proceedings that land occupied by contesting respondents was based on a forged power of attorney.
2. Petitioner has lost from all three Authorities mainly on the ground that he is not able to prove his locus to file objection as well as that sufficient cause was not mentioned in filing objections after thirty years.
3. Sri Aktar Ahmed Siddiqui, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in case it is found that contesting respondents have occupied the land on basis of forged document, property in dispute either will restore to original owner or to Gaon Sabha. The alleged original owner of land in dispute is not traceable and as such land may go to Gaon Sabha.
4. Sri Arvind Srivastava-III, learned counsel for respondents submits that not only petitioner has lost from three Forum but has also failed to make out any case that respondents have committed any forgery. Even he would not fall within the category of interested person to file objection during consolidation proceedings and he placed reliance upon a judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Jairaj Singh and another vs. Additional Collector (Admin.)/DDC, Gorakhpur and others, 2003 SCC OnLine All 959 and relevant paragraph 9 of said judgment is quoted below-:
?9.From a bare reading of Section 9 read with Section 9A(2) read with Section 8 of the Act, it would transpire that the petitioners could raise objection in relation to their rights and liabilities concerning land, mistakes and disputes discovered under Section 8 in respect thereof about share of individual tenure holders or valuation of plot, valuation of trees, well and other improvements. In the instant case, the objections preferred by the petitioners were not as a result of any right or liabilities in the land, mistakes and disputes discovered under Section 8 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in relation to the shares of the tenure holders, valuation of trees, well and other improvements and by this reckoning, the petitioners were wholly incompetent to raise any objection on the point whether the property should have been included in the Consolidation Scheme or not. Whatever may be the case, the objections, if any, could be preferred by the petitioners under Section 9(1) in its essential ingredients. So far as Section 9(1)(b) is concerned, it leaves no manner of doubt inasmuch as Section 8A envisages statement of principles and details of areas as far as they can be determined at this stage, to be earmarked for extension ofabadiincluding area forabadisite forharijansand landless persons in the unit and for such other public purposes as may be prescribed. The aspect of objection being that the plot No. 183/1 could not be excluded from consolidation scheme and valuation thereof should have been assigned has been considered in all its ramifications by the consolidation authorities and there is irresistible finding that the road cannot be widened as there exists houses on either side of the road. In the circumstances, the conclusion is irresistible that objection could not be held to be maintainable under Section 9A(2) or 9B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.?
5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
6. It is not in dispute that petitioner has no lis on land in dispute. It is not his claim that respondents are interfering with possession of petitioner being adjoining land. It is also not in dispute that objections were filed after three decades.
7. So far as allegation that contesting respondents have committed a fraud is concerned, it is a vague ground since no concrete material has been placed on record either before the Authorities of Consolidation or before this Court. Even if it is assumed that respondents have committed any fraud, the fraud has to be pointed out by the person with whom fraud was committed or by the Gaon Sabha, if required. However, no effected person has come forward.
8. In these circumstances, the reliance placed by learned counsel for respondents on Jairaj Singh (supra) would become relevant. Even otherwise, the petitioner could not fall in the category of interested person.
9. In view of above, objections of petitioner are not only suffered by a delay of three decades but has also failed to substantiate the claim. Therefore, there is no perverse finding by all Courts below which could be interfered by this Court in writ jurisdiction.
10. Accordingly, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.10.2023
Nirmal Sinha
