Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1314 (ALL)

Arjun v. Deputy Director of Consolidation

2018-05-23

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT : SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The facts of the case are that during the consolidation operations held in the Village and in the Statement of Principles prepared under Section 8-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), 0.018 hectare was reserved for Harijan Abadi on the Southern Part of Plot No. 449 and 0.022 hectare was reserved for Harijan Abadi on the Northern Side of the aforesaid plot. Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 claimed that they had their houses constructed on .040 hectare on plot No. 449 and the Harijan Abadi reserved as aforesaid had encircled the houses of the aforesaid respondents. Consequently, against the Statement of Principles reserving Harijan Abadi on both sides of Plot No. 449, the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 filed objections before the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.'), which was allowed by the C.O., vide his order dated 5.7.2006, whereby the C.O. directed that .018 hectare reserved on the Southern side of Plot No. 449 for Harijan Abadi be shifted to the Northern side of the said plot and be consolidated with 0.022 hectare reserved for Harijan Abadi on the Northern side of the said plot. 3. Against the order dated 5.7.2006 passed by the C.O., the petitioner filed Appeal under Section 9-B(3) of the Act,? 1953, which was registered as Appeal No. 17. The S.O.C. vide his order dated 27.5.2009 allowed the said appeal and set aside the order dated 5.7.2006 passed by the C.O. and restored the position of Harijan Abadi as proposed in the Statement of Principles prepared under Section 8-A of the Act, 1953. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.5.2009 passed by the S.O.C., respondents filed Revision under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1953 before respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), which was registered as Revision No. 1104/1844. The said revision has been allowed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 23.1.2010, whereby the D.D.C. has set aside the order passed by the S.O.C. and restored the order dated 5.7.2006 passed by the C.O. on the ground that land reserved for Harijan Abadi should not be scattered and should be part of a compact area. The order dated 23.1.2010 passed by the D.D.C. has been challenged in the present writ petition. 5. The order dated 23.1.2010 passed by the D.D.C. has been challenged in the present writ petition. 5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that while passing the order dated 23.1.2010 the D.D.C. ignored the fact that the decision on reserving land for Harijan Abadi is to be considered by the concerned Land Management Committee and the objections filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 before the C.O. against the Statement of Principles prepared under Section 8-A of the Act, 1953 were not maintainable. It has also been argued by counsel for the petitioner that order dated 5.7.2006 was passed by the C.O. without making any spot inspection and the D.D.C. has ignored the said fact while passing the order dated 23.1.2010. 6. Rebutting the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 8 has argued that the petitioner is not a resident of the Village, and therefore, not entitled to be heard before reserving a particular land for Harijan Abadi and for the said reason neither the appeal filed by the petitioner nor the present writ petition is maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as such. It has been further argued by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 8 that the reasons given by the D.D.C. that land reserved for Harijan Abadi should not be scattered is in accordance with the instructions recorded in the Consolidation Manual, and therefore, the impugned order dated 23.1.2010 passed by the D.D.C. is according to law and requires no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. A perusal of the Section 9-B of the Act, 1953 shows that any objections filed by any person against the Statement of Principles prepared under Section 8-A of the Act, 1953 shall be filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, who after affording due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and after taking into consideration the opinion of the Consolidation Committee, submit his report to the C.O. who shall dispose of the objections in the manner prescribed and if no objection was filed, the C.O. shall, with a view to examining the correctness of the Statement of Principles, make local inspection of the unit, after giving due notice to the Consolidation Committee, and may thereafter make such modifications or alterations in the Statement of Principles as he may consider necessary. 9. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions would also show that even the S.O.C., before deciding any Appeal filed under Section 9-B(3) of the Act, 1953 is enjoined to make a local inspection of the unit after giving due notice to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee. Thus, it is evident that before disposing of any objections against the Statement of Principles prepared under Section 8-A of the Act, 1953 the views of the Consolidation Committee of the Village have to be sought by the C.O. and the S.O.C. and before disposing of the objections or Appeal, the C.O. and the S.O.C. as the case may be, have to make a local inspection after giving due notice to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee. 10. It is evident from the orders dated 5.7.2006, 27.5.2009 and 23.1.2010 passed by the C.O., S.O.C. and D.D.C. that no local inspection was made by either of the aforesaid officers before passing orders dated 5.7.2006, 27.5.2009 and 23.1.2010 and the views of the Consolidation Committee were also not sought by the said officers before deciding the objections, appeal or revision. 11. 11. In the circumstances that the orders dated 5.7.2006, 27.5.2009 and 23.1.2010 passed by the C.O., S.O.C. and D.D.C. have been passed without following the procedure prescribed under Section 9-B of the Act, 1953, therefore, without entering into the merits of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties, the orders dated 5.7.2006, 27.5.2009 and 23.1.2010 passed by the C.O., S.O.C. and D.D.C. are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the C.O. to decide the objections filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and pass fresh orders on the same after following the procedure prescribed in Section 9-B of the Act, 1953 within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.