Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2701 (ALL)

Sohan Lal v. D. D. C.

2016-08-04

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav for the petitioners. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 22.11.1979, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 3.6.2013 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.10.2014 passed in the proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 3. The dispute is in respect of nature of plot no.64, area 0.70 acre situated in village Karsada, pargana Dehat Amanat, tehsil and district Varanasi. 4. In basic consolidation record the land in dispute was recorded in khata no.323, which was a khata of banjar land of Gaon Sabha. During partal the consolidation authorities found that the entire area of 0.70 acre of plot no.64 was in the shape of pond and entry in this respect has been made in columns 16 and 24 of CH Form-2A. No one filed any objection, as such Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 22.11.1979 changed the category of plot no.64 from banjar to pokhari. 5. The petitioners filed a time barred appeal against the aforesaid order on 13.7.2012. In the memorandum of appeal as well as affidavit filed in support of it, it had been stated that plot no.64 was recorded as banjar in 1291 fasli,1356 fasli, 1359 fasli and 1362 fasli as well as in the basic consolidation year. Assistant Consolidation Officer without issuing any notice to the occupant of banjar land directed for recording it as pokhari by order dated 22.11.1979. Although on the spot the banjar land was occupied by the petitioners as well as other villagers, who had raised their construction over it. Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 12.2.2013 directed Assistant Consolidation Officer to make spot inspection and submit his report. Assistant Consolidation Officer made spot inspection and submitted his report dated 12.3.2013 showing that in plot no.64 there was abadi, well, bamboo clumps, while plot no.65, area 0.17 acre is pokhari. Thereafter the appeal was heard by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who by order dated 3.6.2013 found that the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer was being challenged after about 33 years. Pokhari as well as banjar land were vested in Gaon Sabha and no person had any right over them. The appeal was dismissed as time barred. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order. Pokhari as well as banjar land were vested in Gaon Sabha and no person had any right over them. The appeal was dismissed as time barred. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 27.10.2014 held that during partal the land in dispute was found in the shape of pokhari and recorded as such in columns 16 and 24 of CH Form 2A. As banjar and pokhari both belonged to Gaon Sabha as such no right could be given to any one over it. On this finding the revision has been dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed with delay of 01 year and 171 days. 6. I have considered the argument of the counsel for the petitioners. 7. By order dated 15.7.2016 the counsel for the petitioners was directed to file document showing abadi of the petitioners as well as villagers over plot no.64 before the date of vesting so that their right over banjar land on the basis of their house and well etc. on it can be examined. The petitioners could not file any document showing their abadi on the date of vesting rather report of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 21.9.2012 and 12.3.2013 have been filed in which it has been mentioned that there was abadi, well, sahan and bamboo clumps over plot no.64. Under Section 9 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 well, trees, in abadi and buildings existing on the date of vesting were settled with the occupiers thereof. Similarly under Section 123 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 the house built prior to 13.5.2007 by a person falling in the category under Section 122-C (3) of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 was settled with him and house built by any other tenure holder prior to 3.6.1995 was settled with him. In the present case there is no document to show that abadi of the petitioners was existing prior to relevant date as mentioned in the aforesaid sections. The report of the year 2012 and 2013 will not be of any help to the petitioners as no one can be given any right over Gaon Sabha land only on the basis of their occupancy. 8. The report of the year 2012 and 2013 will not be of any help to the petitioners as no one can be given any right over Gaon Sabha land only on the basis of their occupancy. 8. So far as the change in category of land from banjar to pokhari is concerned, it is based upon the report during field to field partal made at the time of start of consolidation operation. At that time the entire area was found as pokhari and was recorded as such in CH Form-2A. Thus, Assistant Consolidation Officer has not committed any illegality in recording land as pokhari. In any case as held by the consolidation authorities that the petitioners cannot derive any right over pokhari or on banjar land. 8. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.