Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1985 DIGILAW 402 (ALL)

Murli v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti

1985-04-05

J.N.DUBEY

body1985
JUDGMENT J.N. Dubey, J. - These two writ petitions are directed against a common order dated 9.4.1974 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and as such are being disposed of together. 2. In the basic year the land in dispute was recorded as the property of Gaon Sabha. The petitioners filed two separate objections under Section 9-A of the Act claiming Sirdari rights on the basis of registered lease deeds executed in their favour by the Land Management Committee Teknar district Basti in 1967 which were allowed by the Consolidation Officer on 21.5.1972. The Gaon Sabha did not challenge the order of the Consolidation Officer and as such it became final. 3. It appears that one Vijai Bahadur who was not even Member of the Gaon Sabha moved an application to the Deputy Director of Consolidation claiming that the petitioners were wrongly granted Sirdari rights in the land in dispute by the Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation taking suo motu action under Section 48 of the Act set aside the order dated 21.5.1972 of the Consolidation Officer and restored the basic year entries in favour of the Gaon Sabha on 9.4.1974. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel the lease granted to the petitioners by the Land Management Committee under Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. He has further contended that the order of the Consolidation Officer not having been challenged by the Gaon Sabha has become final and could not be legally set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under his suo motu powers at the instance of a stranger after such a lone time. He has further contended that the order of the Consolidation Officer not having been challenged by the Gaon Sabha has become final and could not be legally set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under his suo motu powers at the instance of a stranger after such a lone time. He has also contended that the land in dispute was not a tank as observed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation but was a low-lying area and, therefore, it cannot be claimed that no Sirdari right could accrue in favour of the petitioners with respect to this land According to him, there was absolutely no evidence on record against the petitioners which could form basis of the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. As a matter of fact even the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha who entered the witness box admitted the claim of the petitioners and did not allege any illegality or irregularity in executing the lease deeds. On the other hand the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha has contended that the land being tank could not be legally allotted in favour of the petitioners by the Land Management Committee and as such the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly set aside the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation granting Sirdari rights to the petitioners. 6. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that these writ petitions deserve to be allowed. Admittedly, the Land Management Committee executed registered lease deeds in favour of the petitioners under Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and no application was moved for cancellation of these lease deeds by any person. That being so, the Consolidation Officer committed absolutely no illegality or irregularity in granting Sirdari rights to them. It is now well settled that the lease granted by the Land Management Committee under Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act can be cancelled by the Revenue Authorities alone and the consolidation authorities have absolutely no jurisdiction to go behind the same. In my opinion, the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed an error apparent on the face of the record in setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer granting Sirdari rights to the petitioners on the basis of lease deeds executed in their favour of the Land Management Committee. In my opinion, the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed an error apparent on the face of the record in setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer granting Sirdari rights to the petitioners on the basis of lease deeds executed in their favour of the Land Management Committee. The other contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners also prima facie appear to be correct but as the petitioners can be granted relief on the first point alone it is not necessary for me to deal with them. 7. In the result, both the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The order dated 9.4.1974 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed. The parties shall bear their own costs.