Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1980 DIGILAW 945 (ALL)

Dwarka Nath v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation

1980-10-09

R.S.SINGH

body1980
JUDGMENT : R.S. Singh, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 3-10-1970 dismissing the Petitioner's revision. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that during the preparation of statement of principles u/s 8-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Assistant Consolidation Officer included plot. No. 661 measuring 3 Biswas 4 dhurs belonging to the Petitioner in the consolidation scheme. The Petitioner filed an objection u/s 9-B of the Act for exclusion of the aforesaid plot from the consolidation scheme as his tube-well and Kolhu are in that plot. 3. The Consolidation Officer after making a spot inspection and considering the genuineness of the Petitioner's claim allowed the objection and excluded the plot in dispute from the consolidation scheme by his order dated 12-10-1969. Jwala Prasad, father of Respondent No.4, filed a time-barred objection before the Consolidation Officer to the effect that the aforesaid plot may not be excluded from the consolidation scheme. This objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 13-1-1970 with the observations that the previous order of the Consolidation Officer dated 12-10-1969 excluding the above plot from the consolidation scheme had become final as no appeal was preferred by Jwala Prasad (Respondent No. 17) against that order and the Consolidation Officer could not revise his earlier order. Consequently the objection was rightly dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. These orders were not challenged before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision. Therefore, the order excluding plot No. 661 from the scheme of consolidation had become final. 4. After sometime proceedings with respect to allotment of chakes were started in the village the aforesaid plot was not allotted to any of the tenure-holders in the provisional consolidation scheme as it had already been excluded from the consolidation scheme. Against this proposed chak of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the Petitioner filed an objection on the ground that plot Nos. 657, 658 and 659 be allotted in his chak. instead of proposed plots to be allotted in his chak: 5. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 11-1-1970 dismissed the objection of the Petitioner and allotted those of the other tenure-holders. Against this order of the Consolidation Officer two appeals were preferred, one on behalf of the Petitioners and the other by Respondent No. 4. instead of proposed plots to be allotted in his chak: 5. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 11-1-1970 dismissed the objection of the Petitioner and allotted those of the other tenure-holders. Against this order of the Consolidation Officer two appeals were preferred, one on behalf of the Petitioners and the other by Respondent No. 4. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by his order dated 30-1-1970 dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner and allowed that of Respondent No. 4 including plot No. 661 in his chak with the exchange ratio of this plot at the rate of 16 annas and in lieu thereof other portions of plot No. 657 were included from the chak of Rajendfa Nath, Respondent' No. 4 and were included in the chak of Dwarika Nath. The Petitioner filed a revision against the order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by which the Petitioner's plot No. 661 was included in the chak of Respondent No. 4. The Deputy Director' of Consolidation dismissed the revision of the Petitioner. The Petitioner; has Challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by which the Petitioner's plot No. 661 was included in the chak of Respondent No. 4, in writ petition before this Court. 6. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that against the proposed allotment of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, objections were filed by the Petitioner and some other tenure holders but no objection was filed by Respondent No. 4 for the inclusion of plot No. 661 in his chak. Therefore, against the order of the Consolidation Officer Respondent No. 4 has no right of appeal. The appeal of Respondent No. 4 was illegally entertained by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and his claim was illegally accepted by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 7. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent that father of Respondent No. 4 Jwala Prasad, Respondent No. 17 in the writ petition was challenging the exclusion of the aforesaid plot in dispute from the consolidation scheme. Therefore, the Respondent No. 1 had a right of appeal. He relied on State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Ram Sri and Another, AIR 1976 All 121 and Maharaj Singh Vs. Therefore, the Respondent No. 1 had a right of appeal. He relied on State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Ram Sri and Another, AIR 1976 All 121 and Maharaj Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1976 SC 2602 wherein it was held that the State has a right of appeal to protect the land of the Gaon Sabha if the Gaon Sabha did not take any interest. 8. I have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. The cases cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondents were under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act whereunder Section 4 of the aforesaid Act estate had vested in the State and u/s 117(1) certain properties have vested in the Gaon Sabha and in this situation it was held that the State Government, as the owner of the estate, is the party 'aggrieved' and, therefore, it can file an appeal against the dismissal of the suit filed by the Gaon Sabha even in the absence of the Gaon Sabha. However, in the present case the position is altogether different. The Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed a chak to Respondent No. 4 consisting of plots other than plot No. 661. If Respondent No. 4 was interested in getting plot No. 661 in his chak it was necessary for him to file an objection against the proposed chak. Some of the other tenure-holders filed objections against the proposed chaks, but none has filed any objection within the time for an inclusion of plot No. 661 in his chak. Therefore, on the disposal of the objections of the other tenure-holders by the Consolidation Officer, Respondent No. 4 had no right of appeal to claim inclusion of plot No. 661 in his chak before the appellate authority as he was in no way aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer. An appeal can be filed against the order of the Consolidation Officer only by a person whose claim has been adversely affected by his order. In the absence of any claim and in the absence of any adverse order affecting the right, title or interest of Respondent No. 4, he cannot be said to be aggrieved in any manner by the order of the Consolidation Officer. In the absence of any claim and in the absence of any adverse order affecting the right, title or interest of Respondent No. 4, he cannot be said to be aggrieved in any manner by the order of the Consolidation Officer. Therefore, he had no right of appeal and the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and also that of the Deputy Director of Consolidation are illegal and in excess of their jurisdiction. 9. One more pertinent fact in this case is, that the disputed plot was excluded from the consolidation scheme on the objection of the Petitioner in view of the fact that his tube-well and Kolhu are in that plot. This plot was not valued and no objection was filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 4. In this view of the matter the question of valuation of plot No. 661 was beyond the jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in an appeal pending before him arising out of allotment of chak proceedings--See Beni Madho Dubey v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1978 RD 251. 10. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned orders of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained in law and deserve to be quashed. 11. In the result, I allow the petition and quash the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 3-10-1970 and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 30-1-1970. However in the peculiar circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.