Court No. - 27 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1977 of 2003 Petitioner :- Surendra Pratap Singh And Others Respondent :- The Collector/Distt. D.D.C.,Azamgarh And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Ram Niwas Singh,Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar,Sanjay K.Srivastava,Santosh Srivastava Hon'ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav,J.
Instant writ petition has been filed challenging the Order
dated 02.11.2002 annexure 1 passed by the Deputy
Director Consolidation in Case No. 50 under Section 48(3) of
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Raghoraj Singh Versus
State. The disputed land is situated in Village Ahibaranpur,
Pargana Nizamabad, Tehsil Sadar, District Azamgarh, which
was notified for consolidation operation for the first time in
the year 1955. An Order was passed on 30.12.1959 and
Raghoraj Singh was declared as Sirdar and the entry in
favour of Gaon Sabha was expunged. However,
Amaldaramad of the Order of the Settlement Officer
Consolidation dated 30.12.1959 was not carried out in the
consolidation records and the village was denotified under
Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Raghoraj Singh preferred an application for Amaldaramad of
the Order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated
30.12.1959. Report was called for and the Consolidation
Officer submitted his report dated 06.04.1980, copy of which
is annexed as annexure 2. This report was forwarded by the
Settlement Officer Consolidation to the Deputy Director
Consolidation and the said report was approved vide Order
dated 24.04.1980 and the proposal of the S.O.C. for
Amaldaramad dated 30.12.1959 was carried out. A copy of
Order dated 24.04.1980 is annexed as annexure 3.
Subsequently, entries were also made in Khatauni of 1388
Fasli to 1393 Fasli of village Ahibaranpur over Khata No. 43.
The State Government made another notification under
Section 4A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act notifying
the village for the consolidation operation with effect from
17.04.1981. Proceeding under Section 122 B of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950 and Rule
115 C of the Rules framed under the said Act were initiated
against Raghoraj Singh in respect of the land in dispute but
the said proceedings were dropped by Order of the Assistant
Collector/Tehsildar Sadar, Azamgarh dated 03.05.1985,
since fresh consolidation had commenced. Consequently,
name of Raghoraj Singh could not be recorded in the
Revenue record and he died leaving the petitioners as his
heir. After death of Raghoraj Singh, the petitioners came to
know at a subsequent stage that their names are not
recorded over the land in question. An application was filed
on 15.05.1998 before the District Deputy Director
Consolidation, Azamgarh. On receipt of the aforesaid
application, the S.O.C./Consolidation Officer was directed to
enquire the matter and report be submitted on 19.05.1998.
Report was submitted on 31.08.1998 with a
recommendation that a dispute in respect of only a part of
the land is pending. Copy of the report is annexed as
annexure 8. The Consolidation Officer requested the District
Government Counsel Revenue, Azamgarh to give his
opinion in this matter vide letter dated 23.02.2000. Original
records were sent to him. The Deputy Director Consolidation
Revenue after examining the entire record arrived at a
conclusion that in the previous consolidation proceedings
Raghoraj Singh was declared to be the owner in possession.
Incidentally, a second consolidation has commenced and
the name of the petitioners have not been entered so far.
The Consolidation Officer had raised a baseless doubt
whereas legally the name of the petitioner is liable to be
recorded till the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation
during the first consolidation proceedings is not challenged
and quashed. Letter of the D.G.C. Revenue dated
31.03.2000 is annexure 8 to the writ petition. The
Consolidation Officer submitted his report on 21.07.2000 to
the Deputy Director Consolidation seeking permission to
incorporate the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation
dated 30.12.1959. However, instead of granting permission
to abide by the opinion of the D.G.C. Revenue and the
recommendation of the Consolidation Officer, a reference
under Section 48(3) of C.H. Act Raghoraj Singh Versus
State was made. The petitioners submitted all the
documents and the necessary evidence staking their rightful
claim. Reference was preferred to respondent no. 1 District
Deputy Director Consolidation, Azamgarh, which was
rejected by means of the impugned order. The ground of
rejection is that the land in question is a public utility land
and therefore the petitioners can not be recorded.
Gaon Sabha has filed its counter affidavit and has only tried
to reiterate what the respondent no. 1 has stated in his
order. Though, counter affidavit has been filed but it has
failed to substantiate that the land in question is for public
utility within the meaning of Section 132 of U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. In fact, no
appropriate reply has been given to the various questions
raised in the writ petition.
Considered arguments of learned counsel and after going
through the entire record, it is apparent that the land in
dispute was recorded as Sirdar of Raghoraj Singh,
predecessor in interest of the petitioner and never land of
public utility and the findings to the said effect is without any
basis and it is apparently to sidetrack the claim of the
petitioners. The proceedings under Section 122B of U.P.
Zamindar Abolition and Land Reforms Act and Rule 115C of
the Rules framed thereunder were initiated but they were
dropped and Raghoraj Singh was declared Sirdar of the land
in dispute by the earlier consolidation Courts. Gaon Sabha
had full knowledge about the order of the Consolidation
Courts but did not challenge the said order before any
competent court of law. The order dated 30.12.1959 is
annexed along with rejoinder affidavit and the said order has
not been set aside till date and therefore no adverse view
can be taken other than what was decided by the Settlement
Officer Consolidation in its order dated 30.12.1959. The
Deputy Director Consolidation completely erred in law in
making reference and forwarded it to the respondent no. 1
without any reason. In fact, it was an uncalled for exercise.
Raghoraj Singh, predecessor in interest of the petitioner was
directed to be recorded as Sirdar. The Deputy Director
Consolidation carved out an absolutely different case and
deprived the petitioner of their valid rights. Gaon Sabha
became alive only when the second consolidation
proceedings commenced and the petitioners tried to get their
name entered into the revenue record on the basis of
previous proceedings. Objections were preferred, the only
basis to arrive at a conclusion against the petitioner is that
the land in question is a public utility land whereas nothing is
on record to substantiate this fact and therefore the disputed
land can not fall within the ambit of Section 132 of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the claim of the
Gaon Sabha is without any basis. The order passed by
respondent no. 1 is set aside. The Writ petition is allowed.
The concerned authorities are directed to enter the name of
the petitioners in the revenue record forthwith and Gaon
Sabha shall not interfere in petititoner’s peaceful possession.
Order Date :- 21.7.2010
arun