Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 2006 (ALL)

GAJRAJ SINGH v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

2003-09-04

S.N.SRIVASTAVA

body2003
S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this petition is focused on the order dated 17. 6. 2003 passed by the Deputy director, Consolidation, Bulandshahr by which the aforesaid authority amended the schedule and disposed of the revision without recording reasons in vindication of his conclusions. ( 2 ) THE facts constituting grievance of the petitioner is that the Deputy Director Consolidation has erroneously pruned the area of plots of the petitioner ostensibly to size it up to the permissible extent of 25% by magnifying valuation of the plots 78/1, 78/2, 78/3 and 78/3 from 10 paise to 40 paise, from 10 paise to 30 paise and 10 paise to 30 paise and from 20 paise to 50 paise respectively. It would transpire from the record that initially, the petitioner was holding Chak no. 201. During consolidation operation, he was proposed two chafes. The first chak comprising in plot No. 545 which was the chak not forming part of his original plot. The second chak was proposed on his original holding, i. e. , 71. It is alleged that the petitioner did not prefer any objection against allocation aforestated. The Consolidation Officer, it appears from the record, altered the adjustment and instead, the petitioner was allotted land comprising in plot No. 72/2 to the exclusion of the land comprising in plot No. 545. The Consolidation Officer made the change in Case No. 1423 in exercise of power under Section 21 (2 ). This change in adjustment according to the petitioner, led to accretion to the land of the petitioner. It is further alleged that respondent No. 4 who was the original tenure holder of plot No. 560, preferred a time-barred appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation which did not find favour and ended up in being rejected by means of order dated 31. 3. 2003. Aggrieved by the aforestated order, the respondent No. 4 preferred revision before the Deputy Director, Consolidation and the impugned order passed therein furnished foundation to the institution of the present petition. ( 3 ) I have heard Sri S. N. Singh and Sri A. K. Rai, for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Singh, representing Gaon Sabha. 3. 2003. Aggrieved by the aforestated order, the respondent No. 4 preferred revision before the Deputy Director, Consolidation and the impugned order passed therein furnished foundation to the institution of the present petition. ( 3 ) I have heard Sri S. N. Singh and Sri A. K. Rai, for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Singh, representing Gaon Sabha. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner premised his submission by canvassing that the revisional authority interfered with the adjustment without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and further that the authority had arbitrarily enhanced the valuation of the plots 78/1, 78/2 and 78/3. It is further submitted that the decision rendered by the Deputy Director consolidation is cryptic one and does not contain any reasoning for the basis of enhancing the valuation of the land manifold. The learned counsel also submitted that the laconic order passed by the authority is based on specious reasoning that the schedule was amended to bring the land to permissible limit of 25% which it was stated, had exceeded the prescribed limit. ( 5 ) FROM an over-view of the entire matter, it transpires to me that the area of the land which fell to the petitioner in the ultimate analysis upto the stage of Settlement Officer, Consolidation exceeded the permissible limit of 25% in terms of the proviso to Section 19 (1) (b) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The proviso to Section 19 (1) (b) is excerpted below for ready reference : "provided that except with the permission of the Director of Consolidation, the area of the holding or holdings allotted to a tenure holder shall not differ from the area of his original holding or holdings by more than twenty five percent of the latter ;" It is explicit from the above proviso that in the course of adjustment of land, the area of the holding allotted to a tenure holder shall not differ from the area of his original holding by more than 25%. However, the intendment that is distilled from the aforesaid proviso is that in no case, the area of original holding should exceed 25% save with the permission of Director of consolidation. However, the intendment that is distilled from the aforesaid proviso is that in no case, the area of original holding should exceed 25% save with the permission of Director of consolidation. ( 6 ) THE main thrust of the argument advanced across the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Director Consolidation has altered the schedule by passing a cryptic order without discussing the basis for change of valuation of the land. In connection with this proposition, it may be noticed that the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Rules framed thereunder prescribe procedure relating to valuation of land. Objection, if any, in relation to valuation could be preferred under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Section 11a prescribes consequences in the event of failure to file objection relating to valuation. Rule 24 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, embodies procedure to be followed and abided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Rule 24 (4) envisages that the Assistant consolidation Officer shall take up, with the help of the finalized list of standard plots, the work of determination of exchange ratio of each plot in the unit, except plots or parts of plots covered by the explanation appended to Clause (2) of Section 3 of the Act a list of which shall be prepared in C. H. Form 18. It is further envisaged that the exchangeratios of plots shall be determined by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in consultation with the Consolidation committee after making enquiries from as many tenure holders of the unit as he may be able to collect. And that the exchange ratio of each plot so determined shall be recorded in words in his own hand by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in column 28 of C. H. Form 2a against the plot concerned. And that the exchange ratio of each plot so determined shall be recorded in words in his own hand by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in column 28 of C. H. Form 2a against the plot concerned. The rule aforesaid further provides that in determining the exchange ratio of each plot the following acts shall be taken into consideration-- (i) the existing soil class of the plot as recorded in the current settlement or roster operations ; (ii) productivity as adjudged by the soil constituents of the plot, the number and kind of crops generally grown and the quantum of labour required to grow them ; (iii) availability of irrigation facilities ; (iv) location having a bearing on the cost or supervision of cultivation or the marketing of the produce of a plot. In Rule 24 (8), it is prescribed that the Consolidation Officer shall check the exchange ratios to the extent of 10% of the plots in each unit along with the calculation of their valuation, the determination of value of trees, wells and other improvements. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, it is further prescribed, shall also check the work aforesaid on the spot in at least 10% of the units in the circle of each Assistant Consolidation Officer. In the instant case, it is noticeable that the assistant Consolidation Officer had initially proposed two chafes aforestated. The Consolidation officer re-arranged the chaks and allocated to the petitioner plots 78/1, 78/2 and 78/3. The settlement Officer, Consolidation dismissed the appeal on the premises that after allotment of chaks, the petitioner had made improvements in the plot by installing tube-well, etc. At this stage, it should also be noticed that the plots 78/2 and 78/3 were recorded as barren land while plot No. 78/1 as nali and by this reckoning, the appellate court converged to the conclusion that the appeal, which was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, has been actuated by oblique motive. In the light of the proviso, conclusions could be irresistible that the area of the plots allotted to the petitioner exceeded 25% as compared to the area comprising in original holding of the petitioner but the order being cryptic lacks validity for want of reasons and for want of appreciation of respective contentions of the parties. In the light of the proviso, conclusions could be irresistible that the area of the plots allotted to the petitioner exceeded 25% as compared to the area comprising in original holding of the petitioner but the order being cryptic lacks validity for want of reasons and for want of appreciation of respective contentions of the parties. In the perspective of the above provisions, it is clear that the Deputy Director, Consolidation hastened to pass the impugned order-skirting round the requirements of the principles of natural justice. Indisputably, the power vested in the Deputy Director Consolidation are wide in amplitude but at the same, it should be exercised with circumspection and within the periphery of the scheme of the Consolidation of holdings Act and the Rules prescribed thereunder. The order passed by the Deputy Director consolidation is a laconic order and does not contain reasons to bolster up the conclusions. The requirement of recording reasons for decision is intended to ensure fairness in the administration of justice, I feel constrained to draw attention to my observation in Tirathraj rendered in Civil misc. Writ Petition No. 13384 of 2003. In this case also, the Court felt compelled to underscore the need of reasoned judgment/order. The observation germane to the controversy runs as under : "firstly when reasons are given, it develops the reasoning process of the adjudicating authority and inculcates in him a sense of fairness. The authorities should bear in mind that if his decision does not have a rational relation with the facts and the law of the case and does not disclose a logical sequence of cause and effect, it may be nullified or in any case, criticized and it may lead to their falling prey to arbitrariness. Secondly, a reasoned decision inspires confidence in the mind of the affected party that justice has not been denied to him. Thirdly, it helps to strengthen the confidence of the public generally in the fairness of the administration of justice. Such confidence is imperative for the growth of an orderly and legal adjustment of the competing claims of the litigant public. Fourthly, if no reasons are given, the scope of Judicial review becomes nominal. No Court, exercising powers of appeal, revision, review or reference, can effectively consider the legality and propriety of the impugned order unless reasons for its making are disclosed. Fourthly, if no reasons are given, the scope of Judicial review becomes nominal. No Court, exercising powers of appeal, revision, review or reference, can effectively consider the legality and propriety of the impugned order unless reasons for its making are disclosed. Finally, recording of reasons imports certainty in the body of law. It has been consistently held that the right of a party to know the reasons for the decision of the quasi-judicial authorities is sanctified by the principles of natural justice. If principles of natural justice are not observed and reasons are not recorded, it would invest an authority with an arbitrary power to pronounce judgments according to his whims and not according to law. " ( 7 ) REVERTING to the instant case, the impugned order does not disclose reasons for the conclusions. No doubt, it is borne out from the record that the area of the plots allotted to the petitioner at the stage of Consolidation Officer, exceeded the prescribed limit of 25% but at the same time, it was imperative on the part of the Deputy Director Consolidation to have discussed the respective contentions and the case of the parties which would have invested the order of the deputy Director Consolidation with the fullness of an order in law. The substance of the order passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation may be paraphrased and it reads that after hearing the parties and looking into the record and chak map, it is clear that the petitioner has been allotted plots admeasuring 2. 8716 hectare as compared to his original holding admeasuring 1. 62237. The authority concerned has not dealt with the respective case and contentions of the parties nor discussed how the reasoning recorded in appeal was vitiated. The impugned order seems to me to have been given in a casual and perfunctory manner and does not have the fullness of an order in law. 62237. The authority concerned has not dealt with the respective case and contentions of the parties nor discussed how the reasoning recorded in appeal was vitiated. The impugned order seems to me to have been given in a casual and perfunctory manner and does not have the fullness of an order in law. The authority, it appears to me, in his solicitude for speed, has proceeded in ignorance of judicial discipline to pass the impugned cryptic order without appreciating the facts of the case or law applicable which would have bearing upon the right decision and without dealing with the issue whether there was any permission accorded as contemplated in the proviso to Section 19 (1) (b) o r whether there was any warrant in the fact situation, to accord anypermission to make allotment under the proviso to Section 19 (1) (b)beyond 25%. The impugned order suffers from want of discussion on the above aspects as well. In the above perspective, the impugned order is tarred with the vice of error apparent on the face of the record particularly on the question of valuation and cannot be sustained in law and it is liable to be quashed. In quintessence, many a question have been left unanswered in the quest of speed by the authority concerned. ( 8 ) IN the result, the petitions disposed of and the matter is relegated to the Deputy Director consolidation for decision afresh by a speaking/reasoned order. It needs hardly be said that it would be open to the petitioner to raise all questions relating to valuation of chak and allotment of chak at the time of hearing, which he pressed into service before this Court. In case, the questions pressed into service before this Court are canvassed before the revisional authority, it shall delve into the aspects in all its ramifications and pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties concerned in accordance with law. .