Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2914 (ALL)

JAGDISH v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-12-13

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.10.2006 passed by Revisional Court in Revision No. 39 of 2006 and the order dated 14.6.2006 passed in case no. 193 under Section 122 B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ' the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act'). The petitioner was in possession over the plot no. 937 (area 9 biswas) and had perfected his rights over the same. However, proceedings were initiated against him by the issuance of notices under Section 122 B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Thereafter upon finding that the petitioner was to be given the benefit of Section 122B(4F) the proceedings were dropped on 5.6.1990 and he was declared a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. Almost after 14 years, an application was filed for recalling of the order dated 5.6.1990 and on 14.6.2006, the order impugned was passed. On 19.10.2006 the order dated 14.6.2006 was upheld by the Revisional Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding as had been arrived at in the order dated 14.6.2006 was erroneous as the Tehsildar wrongly found that the plot in question was entered as a "Marghat" (a place for the disposal of the dead). He submits that as a matter of fact by an order dated 27.12.1989 of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) the old plot no. 281 was declared as "Marghat" and plot no. 616(old) (937 new) was held not to be a "Marghat". On this very fact, learned counsel submits, the proceedings were dropped on 5.6.1990. Even before the order of the S.O.C. dated 27.12.1989 was passed, the old plot no. 616 was entered as Marghat and by the order of the S.O.C. the mistake was rectified and the plot no. 281 was held to be a Marghat. When the proceedings were restored, the petitioner had brought to the notice of the Court, the order of the S.O.C. dated 27.12.1989 but this order was ignored and no attention was paid to it and, therefore, an erroneous order was passed. Learned counsel submitted that by the order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation), it was held that the "Marghat" was in Plot No. 281 and not in plot no. 616. The new number of plot no. 616 admittedly, he submits, was 937, regarding which notices were issued and proceedings for eviction were initiated. Learned counsel submitted that by the order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation), it was held that the "Marghat" was in Plot No. 281 and not in plot no. 616. The new number of plot no. 616 admittedly, he submits, was 937, regarding which notices were issued and proceedings for eviction were initiated. He submitted that the finding of a Consolidation Court was final and all other Authorities/courts were barred from taking a different view by virtue of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the existence of the order dated 27.12.1989. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Tehsildar fell in error by declaring that old plot no. 616 was a "Marghat". He did not definitely have any authority to ignore the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 27.12.1989. The Revisional Court also did not advert to the contentions of the petitioner and, therefore, came to a wrong conclusion. Every finding arrived at by a Consolidation Court is final. All other courts are barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, to take a view different from the view taken by a Consolidation Court. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 14.6.2006 and the order dated 19.10.2006 passed by respondents no.2 and 1 respectively are set aside.