Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 58 (ALL)

Iqurar v. Dy. Director of Consolidation

2015-01-12

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Shri Rahul Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Shri Arun Kumar Srivastava, who appears for the Land Management Committee-respondent No. 5. The writ petition arises out of an objection under section 9-A (2) and has been filed challenging the order dated 18.07.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad in Revision Nos. 110, 90, 119, 115, 77, 78, 124, 142, 154 and 73 as also the orders dated 14.7.2006 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case Nos. 234 and 235. 2. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to the land of Khata Nos. 372 and 578 of Village Mustafapur First and Mustafapur Second Tehsil Thakur, dwara, having a total area of 164.978 hectares. 3. The land in question was recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha as 'ret' under class-6. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of a resolution of the Land Management Committee dated 9.6.1994 which is said to have been approved by the Deputy Collector on 21.7.1994, the said land was recorded as naveen parti under class-5. Thereafter by a resolution of the Land Management Committee dated 20.8.2008 the land is alleged to have been allotted in favour of 98 persons, including the petitioners. It is further alleged that on 16.7.2004 the Tehsildar Thakurdwara sent a letter to the Consolidation Officer for making necessary amaldaramad in the revenue records. 4. It appears from the record that the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 11.7.2006, forwarded a letter to the Consolidation Officer that after enquiry the letter of the Tehsildar Thakurdwara dated 16.7.2004 was found to be farzi. Such a letter was never sent by the Tehsildar Thakurdwara and, therefore, the entry changing the class of land from class-6 to class-5 was liable to be expunged. 5. On the basis of letter of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation aforesaid, Case Nos. 234 and 235 were registered before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer; Kanth, Moradabad by his order dated 14.7.2006 directed that the amaldaramad be expunged and the plot in dispute be recorded under class-6 in the name of the Gaon Sabha. 6. Against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer as many as 98 revisions were filed before the opposite party No. 1. These revisions were decided by a common order dated 18.7.2014. 6. Against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer as many as 98 revisions were filed before the opposite party No. 1. These revisions were decided by a common order dated 18.7.2014. By this order, the revisions have been dismissed and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, has been affirmed. Hence this writ petition filed by 10 petitioners who were the revisionists in the revision numbers noted above. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was ex parte. No notice or information was ever given to the petitioners about the proceedings. The petitioners had been allotted the land by means of a resolution of the Gaon Sabha dated 20.8.2004 and that the same was duly approved. The petitioners were not responsible for the orders that were passed for changing the class of the land from class-6 to class-5. They are valid and bona fide allottees and, therefore, are entitled to be recorded as bhumidharis of the land in question and the Courts below have wrongly and illegally dismissed their revisions. 8. In this connection, it would be relevant to note that all the 98 persons who had filed the revisions, have not challenged the order impugned. Only 10 of the alleged allottees have come forward by means of this writ petition. 9. Learned Standing Counsel as also learned Counsel for the Land Management Committee have submitted that land in question was land under section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and that the same could not have been subject matter of allotment to anyone. The allotment, if any, in favour of the petitioners is, therefore, void and will not confer right, title or interest upon the petitioners. 10. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the record, a pointed query was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners as to whether there exists any provision for changing the class of land from class-6 to class-5 on the basis of a resolution of the Land Management Committee. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to justify such change in class of land but has not been able to point out any provision where under the Land Management Committee could have got the class of land changed, on the basis of a resolution. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to justify such change in class of land but has not been able to point out any provision where under the Land Management Committee could have got the class of land changed, on the basis of a resolution. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has in the alternative submitted that the petitioners are in no way concerned with such change in class which was not at their instance. This change was made prior to the allotment in their favour and, therefore, they are not in a position to state anything substantial as regard such change. 12. It is abundantly clear from the record that the amaldaramad regarding change in the class of land was made on the basis of alleged letter/parvana amaldaramad issued by the Tehsildar Thakurdwara on 16.7.2004. It has come on record that such a letter was never dispatched from the office of the Tehsildar Thakur dwara as it does not find a mention in the relevant dispatch register. 13. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, this letter has been held to be a farzi and fabricated document. 14. There is no material on record which could even remotely be construed as a challenge to this finding recorded by the Courts below. It is, therefore, to be held that the change of class of the land in dispute from the class-6 to class-5 (naveen parti) was wholly unauthorized and without any basis. The land in question prior to the change in class recorded was as 'ret' and the same, therefore, could not have been the subject matter of allotment in favour of the petitioners. The very basis of the allotment made in favour of the petitioners, is this change in class of land. It appears that the said change in class was procured in the revenue records only with a view to benefit the petitioners and to allot them land which otherwise would not have been allotted to them. 15. Since the very basis of the allotment in favour of the petitioners has been found to be farzi by the two Courts below, there appears no justification to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly and for the reasons given above, I find no illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.