JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard Counsel for the parties.
These two writ petitions having been filed against the same orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners by these writ petitions have prayed for quashing the order dated 25th November, 2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 10th September, 2004 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The facts of Writ Petition No. 253 of 2005 are being noted for deciding both the writ petitions.
3. Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the writ petitions are; during consolidation proceedings, the petitioner was allotted Chak No. 30, respondent No. 3 was allotted chak No. 246, respondent No. 4 was allotted chak No. 187 and respondent No. 5 was allotted Chak No. 186. The petitioner as well as respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 were original tenure holder of Plot No. 267 area 1.800, Plot No. 93 area 0.170 and Plot No. 243 area 0.0221. The chaks were proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. An objection was filed by respondent No. 5 under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 claiming that she should be allotted chak over Plot No. 243, which is her original holding. On objection of respondent No. 5 Case No. 63 was registered. The Consolidation Officer decided all the objections including the Objection No. 63 by order dated 9th February, 2004. The objection of respondent No. 5 was allowed. An appal was filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation being Appeal No. 44 Smt. Shanti Devi v. Sobharam and Ors. and Appeal No. 48 Smt. Rajbali v. Ratan Devi and Ors. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation by order dated 10th September, 2004 decided the appeals. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the appeals. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation reduced the valuation of Plot No. 267 from 80 paisa to 60 paisa and amended the Chak Nos. 30, 186, 187 and 246. A revision was filed by the petitioner, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order, contended that the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation reducing the valuation of Plot No. 267 was wholly illegal. He further contends that no objections were filed regarding valuation of Plot No. 267. The observation made by Settlement Officer of Consolidation that parties agreed for change of valuation was incorrect.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 contended that valuation of Plot No. 267 to the extent of 60 paisa for some portion was rightly fixed since it was infertile. It was contended that valuation of some portion of Plot No. 267 has been reduced. Learned Counsel has supported the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
6. An application for impleadment has been filed on behalf of Atar Singh stating that he was also allotted some portion of Plot No. 267 but due to the interim order passed in the writ petition he has not been able to get the possession over his chak. Atar Singh was also permitted to be impleaded as respondent No. 6 in the writ petition and has been heard.
7. I have considered the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. Petitioner has brought on the record his C.H. From 23 as well as of respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 on the record, which indicate that petitioner as well as respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 are original tenure holders of Plot No. 267, area 1.800 each having 1/4th share. The petitioner was proposed chak on Plot No. 267 along with other plots, which plot was taken away from the petitioner by order of Consolidation Officer and he was allotted Chak on Plot No. 275 and 276. The challenge in the writ petition is to the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which has affected both the petitioners, i.e., Smt. Kiran Devi and Smt. Ratan Devi since by the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation the valuation of the chaks of the petitioners have been reduced. The submission of Counsel for the petitioners is that no objection was filed regarding valuation by any of the parties, hence the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has no justification in reducing the valuation. From a perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition, it is clear that proceedings were initiated by filing objection under Section 21(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The dispute arose in the proceedings under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The scheme of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is necessary to be looked into for deciding the controversy raised in the writ petition. Under Section 9 of the said Act records are published, which also contain the valuation of plots apart from other things. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 9any person interested may within 20 days is required to file objection in respect to entries in the record. Under Section 9A(2) all cases, which are not disposed of by Assistant Consolidation Officer under Sub-section (1) has to be forwarded to the Consolidation Officer, which was required to be disposed of. Sections 9(1) as well as Section 9A, which are relevant for the purpose, are extracted below:
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 the 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 plot; and
(b) valuation of trees, wells and other improvements for calculating compensation therefore and its apportionment amongst owners, if there be more owners than one;
(c) publish in the unit current Khasra and 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).
9-A. Disposal of cases relating to claims to land and partion 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, making such enquiry as he may deem necessary;
settle the disputes, correct the mistakes and effect partition as far.as may be by consolidation between the parties appearing before him and pass orders on the basis of 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 improvement, for calculating compensation therefor, and its appointment 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.
9. Section 11-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 provides for bar of objections regarding valuation of plots, which has been raised under Section 9 or which might or ought to have been raised under that section. Section 11-A is quoted below:
11-A. Bar of objections.- No question in respect of-
(i) claims to land;
(ii) partition of joint holdings; and
(iii) valuation of plots, wells and other improvements, where the question is sought to be raised by a tenure-holder of the plot or the owner of the tree, well or other improvements recorded in the annual register under Section 10.
relating to the consolidation area, [which has been raised under Section 9 or which might or ought to have been raised under that section] but has not been so raised, shall be raised, or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings.
10. Section 11-A of UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 thus contains a principle akin to principle of res-judicata. Thus the objection which has been raised under Section 9 or which might or ought to have been raised under Section 9 cannot be allowed to be raised in subsequent proceedings of the consolidation. From the materials brought on the record it is clear that no objection regarding valuation of Plot No. 267, which was original holding of petitioners and the respondents, was raised under Section 9. Section 11-A thus creates a bar of raising an objection with regard to valuation of the land by original tenure holders of the plot.
11. When no objection was raised by respondents No. 3 and 4 or any other tenure holder of Plot No. 267, on an appal filed under Section 21(1) no issue can be raised regarding valuation of Plot No. 267. The valuation of Plot No. 267 was fixed at 80 paisa and the same having not been challenged under Section 9, the principle of constructive res-judicata shall come into play as provided under Section 11-A of the Act.
12. The Apex Court considering the provisions of Section 11-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 in ; Gafoora and Anr. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Ors., made following observations in paragraph 3 of the judgment:
3. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court is correct in not interfering with the order of the Deputy Director (Consolidation) under Article 226 of the Constitution. Jurisdiction under Article 226 is well settled. The High Court will interfere only if some order is passed by an authority in excess of jurisdiction or there is a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the records. The principal question that was canvassed before the Deputy Director (Consolidation) was whether failure to prefer objection within the time-limit prescribed under Section 9(2) of the Act would entitle an aggrieved party to agitate the matter beyond the prescribed period without explaining the cause of delay in preferring the objection and obtaining a proper order of condonation of delay from the appropriate authority. It is clear from the records that no objection was preferred within the prescribed time. The Deputy Director (Consolidation) refused, if we may say so, rightly to accept that the appellants had earlier lodged any objection on November 21, 1966. That being the position, there was no material whatsoever before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for exercising his jurisdiction to condone the delay in lodging objection under Section 9(2) of the Act. Section 11A bars all objections in respect of claim to land, partition of joint holdings and valuation of plots, etc. relating to the consolidation area which have been raised under Section 9 or which might or ought to have been raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings. That being the position there is not error of law in order of Deputy Director (Consolidation) nor is there any excess of jurisdiction committed by him in disposing of the matter as he did in exercise of his revisional power under Section 48.
13. Section 11-A creates a bar on objection in respect of claim to land, partition of joint holding and valuation of plots etc. relating to the consolidation area, which has been raised under Section 9 or which might or ought to have been raised under that section, but has not been so raised. Thus no question under Section 11-A can be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings. In view of the above position of law, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation committed error in changing the valuation of Plot No. 267 from 80 paisa to 60 paisa, which has effect of reduction of valuation of the petitioners. Although the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has noted in the order that valuation of 80 paisa to 60 paisa be fixed with regard to which there is oral consent of the parties but in the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation it has not been stated that the present petitioners, who were respondents in appeal, have agreed for reduction of the valuation, which had effect of taking out area from their plots. In any view of the matter when there is a bar under Section 11-A with regard to valuation, the same cannot be done even by any kind of consent by the parties.
14. In view of the above, the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 10th September, 2004 is not sustainable. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also erred in law in dismissing the revision without adverting to the effect of Section 11-A. In result, the orders dated 10th September, 2004 of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25th November, 2004 are set-aside.
Both the writ petitions are allowed.
There will be no order as to costs.