Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2411 (ALL)

Harnarain v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Mahoba

2016-07-12

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri Ram Kishor Gupta for the petitioners. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 28.2.2015 and 10.9.2015 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.5.2016 passed in the proceeding under Section 9 B of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 3. Accordingly to the petitioners, the village was placed under consolidation operation by notification dated 30.8.1986. The publication of the village under Section 9 of the Act took place on 5.2.1993. The petitioners filed a highly time barred objection under Section 9 on 4.12.2000 for determination of valuation of his plots 4347/1 area 1.262 hectare , 4349/2 area 0.064 hectare, 4703/2 area 0.358 hectare and 4709/5 area 0.568 hectare. According to the petitioner, all these plots were even level land and cultivation was going upon it. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 3.1.2001 directed for determination of valuation of the aforesaid plots at the rate of 40 paisa. It is alleged Sri Aman Singh Yadav, District Government Counsel, Mahoba filed an appeal registered as Appeal No. 52/2013-14 against the order of Consolidation Officer on 12.12.2014. The Settlement Officer Consolidation called for a fresh report. The Assistant Consolidation Officer submitted his report dated 9.1.2015 thereafter the Settlement Officer Consolidation by the order dated 28.2.2015 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer in respect of plot no. 4347/1 area 1.262 hectare. The petitioners filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order. The recall application was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation who by the order dated 10.9.2015 rejected the recall application of the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in Revision No. 15 of 2014-15 which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.5.2016. 4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in the order dated 23.5.2016 found that in the report of Assistant Consolidation Officer it has been clearly mentioned that plot no. 4347/1 area 1.262 hectare was nala on the spot. Thus determination of its valuation was illegal. Accordingly, the revision was dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. 6. The “consolidation” has been defined under Section 3 (2) of the Act. 4347/1 area 1.262 hectare was nala on the spot. Thus determination of its valuation was illegal. Accordingly, the revision was dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. 6. The “consolidation” has been defined under Section 3 (2) of the Act. Section 3 (2) Consolidation means re-arrangement of holdings in a unit amongst several tenure-holders in such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact]; Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause, holding shall not include the following: - (i) Land which was grove in agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which the notification under Section 4 was issued; (ii) land subject to fluvial action and intensive soil erosion; (iii) land mentioned in Section 132 of UP Zamindar Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (iv) such compact areas as are normally subject to prolonged water logging; (v) usar, kallar and rihala plots forming a compact area including cultivated land within such area; (vi) land in use for growing pan, rose, bela jasmine and kewra; and (vii) such other areas as the Director of Consolidation may declare to be unsuitable for the purpose of consolidation; 6. The finding that the land in dispute is nala, could not be challenged by the petitioner, therefore it could not be included in the consolidation area and impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner that nala is serving public purpose as such it could be left as property of State and Gaon Sabha is not liable to be accepted. 7. The counsel for the petitioner, further argued that the appeal was filed by District Government Counsel, Sri Aman Singh Yadav in his personal capacity without there being any affidavit along with the application under Section 5 as such the appeal is not maintainable but the appellate court has illegally condoned the delay and allowed the appeal. Since the matted was decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the full Bench of this Court in Rama Kant Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation AIR 1975, All 126 has held that “after the record has been called for by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act he should examine the record to decide whether it was a fit case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction suo motu.”. In the present case, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has decided the case on merit as such technical argument in this respect is not liable to be accepted. 8. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.