Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 56 (ALL)

Ghanshyam v. State of U. P.

2015-01-12

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2015
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Harsh Vikram for the petitioner. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 04.01.2013 by which the objection of the petitioner has been rejected and the land in dispute was directed to be recorded as talab land and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.8.2014 by which the revision filed by Gaon Sabha was allowed and the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 30.5.2013 allowing the appeal and remanding the case for fresh decision, has been set aside. 3. The dispute related to plot no.369, area 1.80 acre of village Kakather, Tehsil Hasanpur, district Amroha. The petitioner is claiming that the land in dispute was allotted to him by the Land Management Committee through patta dated 15.2.1989 conferring sirdari right upon him. Since the date of allotment he has been in possession over the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties found that the land in dispute was talab land and Sub Divisional Officer had changed the category of the land and allotted it to the petitioner and held that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi and others, 2001 Supp(1) SCR 23, the Sub Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to change the category of the talab land. Accordingly, the patta granted to the petitioner was void. On this finding the objection of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner filed an appeal from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who by order dated 30.5.2013 allowed the appeal of the petitioner and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision holding that the Consolidation Officer has not framed proper issues. The order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was challenged by Gaon Sabha before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision. The revision was allowed by the Deputy Director of the Consolidation by order dated 13.8.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1989 by the Sub Divisional Officer. The revision was allowed by the Deputy Director of the Consolidation by order dated 13.8.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1989 by the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer being the competent authority has rightly changed the category of the land in dispute as it was no more in the shape of talab land and cultivation was going on over it. The patta can only be challenged under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 before the Collector and so long as the patta of the petitioner is not cancelled by the competent authority the Consolidation Officer is bound to record the name of the petitioner over it as the patta of the petitioner has not been cancelled by the competent authority. He further submits that the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was an order of remand and no interference was required by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally interfered in the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and allowed the revision. He further submits that the Land Management Committee has not contested the objection of the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer as such the revision filed by Gaon Sabha was not maintainable. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. 6. So far as the maintainability of the revision is concerned, admittedly the land in dispute was earlier recorded as talab land as such Gaon Sabha has a right to protect talab land and revision filed by it was maintainable in spite of the fact that it was not able to file an objection before the Consolidation Officer. 7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has found that the land in dispute was talab land and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari(supra), the Sub Divisional Officer was not competent to change its nature. Accordingly, the order of the Sub Divisional Officer changing its category is illegal. The finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in this respect does not suffer from any illegality. 8. Accordingly, the order of the Sub Divisional Officer changing its category is illegal. The finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in this respect does not suffer from any illegality. 8. So far as the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that no proceeding for cancellation of patta of the petitioner was taken nor any order was passed cancelling patta of the petitioner, is concerned at the most right of the petitioner can be treated as an asami on the basis of the patta dated 15.2.1989 as the land in dispute was land of talab and covered in the land specified under Section 132 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 as such the maximum period of patta can be five years under Rule 176 A of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules and the period of five years has already been expired as such the name of the petitioner cannot be recorded over the land in dispute. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.