Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3718 (ALL)

Harbhajan Singh v. D. D. C.

2014-12-11

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Sri Yogeshwar Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990. He also appears for the respondents in the connected Writ Petition Nos. 21538 of 1993 and 53995 of 2004, Sri Subodh Kumar, who appears for the contesting respondents in Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990 and is Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 33859 of 2001. Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990 is directed against the order dated 17.3.1990 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rampur and arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks. The petitioner is holder of chak No. 84, Jagir Singh, respondent No. 2 is holder of chak No. 23 and respondent No. 3 is holder of chak No. 79. 2. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that at the A.C.O. stage, he was proposed a single chak on plot Nos. 200/9 and 46. Aggrieved by such proposal, the petitioner filed an objection demanding a chak on plot Nos. 22 and 24, which was Gaon Sabha land, situated near the Abadi. The objection is stated to have been dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 27.4.1989. However, copy of this order has not been filed along with the writ petition. 3. Against the order dismissing the objection, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by his order dated 20.10.1989. This appeal had been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the valuation of plot Nos. 20, 23, 22, 56, 57, 58 and 59 had been reduced and the same had been allotted in the chak of Jagir Singh and Surendra Kaur, respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition, thereby causing loss to the Gaon Sabha. It was further prayed that these plots be proposed in the chak of the petitioner on the existing valuation of 80 paise. While allowing this appeal, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation held that there was no justification for reducing the valuation of the plots in question and the valuation, which had been reduced by the Consolidation Officer, was restored back to, as it existed at the A.C.O. stage i.e. 80 paise. While allowing this appeal, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation held that there was no justification for reducing the valuation of the plots in question and the valuation, which had been reduced by the Consolidation Officer, was restored back to, as it existed at the A.C.O. stage i.e. 80 paise. Consequently and in view of the fact that the petitioner was agreeable to the inclusion of these plots at their valuation of 80 paise, even though they were not his original holdings, this order allotted the petitioner a chak on plot No. 46 as proposed at the ACO stage. 4. By the same order, connected appeal filed by Jagir Singh, respondent No. 2 was dismissed, although some modification was required in his chak on account of the increase in valuation to 80 paise. 5. Aggrieved by the appellate order, Jagir Singh and Surendra Kaur, respondents 2 and 3, filed revisions which were heard and decided by a common order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation on 16.3.1990, allowed these revisions. Hence this writ petition. 6. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was willing to take the land in question at its existing valuation of 80 paise but the Deputy Director of Consolidation illegally reduced the valuation to 70 paise and allotted it to the contesting respondents, causing loss to the Gaon Sabha. The second submission is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order has sought to consolidate the ceiling land in the unit, for which he was not authorized under the Act. 7. Upon consideration of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, it emerges that his primary grievance is that he has not been allotted a chak near the Abadi. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was not possessed of any original holding in the vicinity of the Abadi. 8. Sri Subodh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order and has stated that both the parties have been allotted chaks on their original holding and, therefore, the impugned order requires no interference. 9. Since as noticed above, the petitioner primarily wants a chak near the Abadi, even though he is not possessed of any original holding in its vicinity, the order impugned, which fails to make such allotment, cannot be faulted with. 9. Since as noticed above, the petitioner primarily wants a chak near the Abadi, even though he is not possessed of any original holding in its vicinity, the order impugned, which fails to make such allotment, cannot be faulted with. It is settled law that a tenure holder is entitled to allotment of land near the Abadi or for extension of his Abadi, only if he is possessed of some original holding there and not otherwise and for this reason alone, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Writ Petition No. 21538 of 1993 has been filed by Jagir Singh on the allegation that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on his revision had been stayed by the interim order granted in Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990 and the interim order was modified on 26.3.1991. Thereafter, the Settlement Officer in connivance with Harbhajan Singh, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990, tried to prepare C.H. Form 45 in favour of Harbhajan Singh in accordance with the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. This was done on the reasoning that since the revisional order had been stayed the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation revived. 11. It has been submitted by Sri Subodh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition that the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation merged with the order passed by the D.D.C. on 16.3.1990 and, therefore, the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was not liable to be implemented in the revenue records. Therefore, this writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 18.5.1993, whereby the S.O.C. was directed to prepare C.H. Form 45 and map in accordance with the order passed by him. 12. When this writ petition came up for admission, it was ordered to be connected with Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990 and it was further directed that the interim order granted in the said writ petition would continue to operate. 13. 12. When this writ petition came up for admission, it was ordered to be connected with Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990 and it was further directed that the interim order granted in the said writ petition would continue to operate. 13. Since the Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990 is held liable to be dismissed, the instant Writ Petition No. 21538 of 1993 involves only an academic question and the same does not require any pronouncement except that the order impugned in Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990 is liable to be implemented in the revenue records, since the said writ petition is being dismissed. This writ petition is therefore consigned to the record with the observation that final records be prepared in pursuance of the order dated 16.3.1990, which will stand affirmed by dismissal of Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990. 14. Writ Petition No. 33859 of 2001 has been filed by Jagir Singh challenging the orders dated 15.6.2001 and 7.4.2000 passed by the respondent No. 1, the Assistant Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rampur and the order dated 4.10.1993 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Rampur. 15. The Counsel for the petitioner Sri Subodh Kumar has relied upon the averments made in paragraphs 12 to 14 of the writ petition. He has however stated that this writ petition is only being pressed formally and he would be satisfied in case Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990 is dismissed. 16. In view of the statement so made, in my considered opinion Writ Petition No. 33859 of 2001 is liable to be dismissed. 17. As far as Writ Petition No. 53995 of 2004 is concerned, the same is directed against the orders passed by the Collector, Rampur, respondent No. 2 and the order dated 31.7.2002 passed by the Tehsildar in mutation proceedings under section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. The Tehsildar by his order has stayed the proceedings on the mutation application filed by the Satvir Singh, on account of the pendency of Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990. 18. It has been submitted that the petitioner Satvir Singh has no concern with Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990 nor he is a party therein and that the order impugned, which have been passed taking note of the said writ petition is illegal and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. 19. 18. It has been submitted that the petitioner Satvir Singh has no concern with Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990 nor he is a party therein and that the order impugned, which have been passed taking note of the said writ petition is illegal and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. 19. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed by Harbhajan Singh, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990. The only averment of substance in this counter affidavit is that the instant writ petition is directed against the orders passed in mutation proceedings under section 34 of the Land Revenue Act and, therefore, the same is not maintainable. 20. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the allegation of the petitioner in this writ petition, that he has no concern with and his mutation application is in no way connected with the land, which was the subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990, have not been categorically denied in the counter affidavit and, therefore, the averments of the writ petition are to be taken as correct. 21. It is also clear that the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that these orders have been procured out of sheer malice and enmity and the authorities have passed the orders staying the mutation proceedings without examining as to whether the mutation application was in any way connected with the land in dispute in Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990 appears justified. The orders impugned are therefore liable to be set aside. 22. Since mutation proceedings, which are fiscal in nature, have remained installed for more than 20 years, it can therefore be inferred that for this 20 years there has been loss of revenue and the Tehsildar and the Collector, who passed the impugned orders are liable for such loss of revenue. 23. This Court therefore directs the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, U.P., Lucknow, to conduct an enquiry in the matter and to recover the loss of revenue, if any, from the said officers. 24. The Writ Petition No. 53995 of 2004 is therefore liable to be allowed and the order dated 18.11.2004 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Revision No. 23 of 2003-04, Satvir Singh v. Prabhat Kumar, and the order dated 31.7.2002 passed by the Tehsildar in Case No. 145 of 2002, Satvir Singh v. Satish Chandra, are liable to be quashed. The Writ Petition No. 53995 of 2004 is therefore liable to be allowed and the order dated 18.11.2004 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Revision No. 23 of 2003-04, Satvir Singh v. Prabhat Kumar, and the order dated 31.7.2002 passed by the Tehsildar in Case No. 145 of 2002, Satvir Singh v. Satish Chandra, are liable to be quashed. 25. Accordingly and for the reasons given above, Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990 is dismissed. 26. The Dispute in Writ Petition No. 21538 of 1993 rendered a purely academic dispute in view of dismissal of Writ Petition No. 8026 of 1990 and, therefore, the same is consigned to the records. 27. Writ Petition No. 33859 of 2001 is dismissed as learned Counsel for the petitioner has pressed it only formally. 28. Writ Petition No. 53995 of 2004 is allowed. The order dated 18.11.2004 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Revision No. 23 of 2003-04, Satvir Singh Vs. Prabhat Kumar, and the order dated 31.7.2002 passed by the Tehsildar in Case No. 145 of 2002, Satvir Singh v. Satish Chandra, are quashed. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, U.P., Lucknow, is directed to hold an enquiry in the matter and to recover the loss of revenue, if any, occasioned by the impugned orders, from respondents 2 and 3, who had passed the same. Learned Standing Counsel shall communicate this order forthwith to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, U.P. Lucknow, who shall hold the enquiry and submit a report in this regard to the High Court within a period of two months from today i.e. positively on or before by 12th of February, 2015.