Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 759 (ALL)

Sipahi Lal v. State of U. P.

2015-04-09

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Heard Shri C.S. Agnihotri holding brief of Shri Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Notice on behalf of respondent no. 2, Gaon Sabha has been accepted by Shri Anuj Kumar. 3. The petitioner has been filed challenging the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the respondent no. 2 and the order dated 21.10.2014 passed by the respondent no. 3. 4. Facts of the case are that the father of the petitioners was recorded in basic year khatauni under clause 4-A. In proceedings under Section 9-A of the Act, the name of the father of the petitioners was ordered to be expunged. The consequential appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the basic year entry was maintained. This order was passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 30.12.2011. 5. It has been specifically averred in the writ petition that the consolidation operation in the unit came to a close by issuance of a notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in June, 2013. 6. It appears that on 07.03.2014 the petitioners filed an application under Section 27 (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Collector Banda. This application came to be rejected vide order dated 21.10.2014 passed by Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Banda. The consequential revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 18.12.2014. Hence this writ petition. 7. The Commissioner in his order dated 18.12.2014 has observed that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation while allowing the appeal of the petitioners had opined that the petitioners may approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of his rights in view of Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. It has further been observed that no evidence has been adduced to show that such proceedings have been initiated. On the strength of the aforesaid two observations, it has been held that the proceedings are not one for correction of a clerical error but are in the nature of title proceedings and, therefore, dismissed the revision. Even the order passed by the Collector is substantially to the same effect. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed for irrelevant considerations and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 9. Even the order passed by the Collector is substantially to the same effect. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed for irrelevant considerations and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 9. The counsel for the respondents have refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have supported the impugned order. It would be relevant to note that by their application dated 07.03.2014, the petitioners had prayed for a correction in the CH Form-45 by incorporating the name of the petitioners in accordance with the entry contained in CH Form-23. In my considered opinion, such an application was maintainable before the Consolidation authorities and not before the Collector whose jurisdiction was in fact invoked. Besides Section 27 (3) empowers the Collector to maintain the record of rights etc. and order for its correction in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Even otherwise, since the consolidation operations had come to a close, proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act were the proper remedy available to the petitioners and for this reason alone, I see no justification to interfere with the impugned order. 10. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 11. However dismissal of this writ petition would not preclude the petitioners from initiating such legal proceedings as may be available to them under law for redressal of their grievances, including proceedings for declaration of right, title or interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 122-B (4-F) as was observed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in his order dated 30.12.2011, which according to the petitioners has attained finality. 12. Accordingly and subject to the observations as above, this writ petition is dismissed.