Banshidhar v. Dy. Director of Consolidation — 1966 DIGILAW 291 (ALL)

JUDGMENT B.N. Nigam, J. - Bansidhar has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders passed by opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Consolidation Officer, Aurangabad, copies being annexures 3, 2 and 1 respectively. 2. In the petition I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner states that at the time of the field to field checking in the course of the consolidation operations, the petitioner was found in possession of plot No. 118/167 in village Sadarpur, Pargana Aurangabad, Tahsil Mohamdi, district Kheri. After the publication of the record the petitioner filed an objection. Opposite party No. 5 also filed a time barred objection. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objections of opposite party No. 5 and directed that the name of the petitioner be entered as a trespasser of class 9. The petitioner appealed. The appeal was dismissed. He filed a revision. The revision application has also been dismissed. 4. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned counsel for opposite party No. 4. It is pointed out that during the pendency of this writ petition proceedings for the allotment of chaks have taken place and the petitioner omitted to file any objection under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stands after its amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963. The learned counsel has relied on a number of decisions, particularly, those reported in Ganga Singh and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow and others, 1964 AWR 589 and Raghunandan and others v. The Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and others, 1966 AWR 237. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges that none of these decisions took into consideration the provisions of Sections 52 (2) and 23 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The learned counsel has taken me through these provisions. It does not appear to me that Section 52(2) is of any assistance. The orders of this Court in the writ petition will be given effect to. But that does not help in deciding the question whether the discretionary power of issuing a writ should be exercised in favour of the petitioner. It does not appear to me that Section 52(2) is of any assistance. The orders of this Court in the writ petition will be given effect to. But that does not help in deciding the question whether the discretionary power of issuing a writ should be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Further it appears to me that as allotment of chaks has taken place the petitioner would not get any relief even if the writ petition was decided in his favour. To that end reference may be made to the provisions of Section 23(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. That sub-section reads :- "The provisional consolidation scheme so confirmed shall be published in the unit and, except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, shall be final." It is accepted that in the present case the provisional consolidation scheme has been confirmed. There is no provision in the Act that orders passed in objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, if the objections are decided after the stage of objections under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, shall be given effect to. It, therefore, follows that if any objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was pending, either before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer or before any superior officer, that will not affect the petitioner's liability to file an objection under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. If he fails to do so and if the provisional consolidation scheme is confirmed, the proceedings under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act still pending would become infructuous. Similarly, any order passed in this writ petition would be infructuous for the reason that it could not be given effect to as the provisional consolidation scheme has already become final and the mere giving effect to the orders of this Court in this writ petition under the provisions of Section 52(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will not mean that the petitioner is to be allotted any chak. The order of this court will affect only the order passed in the objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and will have no effect on the provisional consolidation scheme which has now been confirmed. 5. I, therefore, accept the preliminary objection and dismiss the writ petition as infructuous. The order of this court will affect only the order passed in the objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and will have no effect on the provisional consolidation scheme which has now been confirmed. 5. I, therefore, accept the preliminary objection and dismiss the writ petition as infructuous. There will be no order as to costs. The stay order dated September 15, 1965, is vacated.