Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2133 (ALL)

MURAHU SINGH v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

2018-10-05

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Shri Namit Srivastava, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 7, today in the Court which is taken on record. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ram Babu Yadav appearing for respondent No. 3 Gaon Sabha and Shri Namit Srivastava appearing for respondent No. 7. 3. The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.3.2005 passed by the respondent No. 2 and orders dated 15.10.2010 and 18.8.2018 passed by the respondent No. 1. 4. It appears from the record that the Consolidation Officer on 28.12.1998 in an objection under Section 9-A(2) U.P.C.H. Act which appears to be on behalf of the State, passed an order of exchange, exchanging plot Nos. 241 and 265 recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha with plot Nos. 320 and 328-Gha recorded in the name of Murahu Singh. 5. Against this order as many as four appeals were filed which were allowed on 14.3.2005 on the reasoning that plot No. 241 had been reserved for Khalihan. It was, therefore, land of public utility which is in any case could not have been subject-matter of exchange. The appellate Court also held that the order, in any case, was without jurisdiction. 6. Consequent, revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.8.2018 and the appellate order affirmed. 7. Assailing the order impugned, contention of counsel for the petitioner is that in the intervening period a road has been constructed over the plots belonging to the petitioner which were given in exchange to the Gaon Sabha and therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. 8. The second contention is that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner in the appeals and the appellate order was therefore, ex parte. 9. Counsel appearing for the respondents as also Gaon Sabha has supported the impugned order. 10. At the very out set, it would be relevant to note that under the provisions of the U.P.C.H., Act, the Consolidation Authorities have no jurisdiction to pass an order of exchange. The provision for exchange exists only under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and a detailed procedure is prescribed for the purpose. 10. At the very out set, it would be relevant to note that under the provisions of the U.P.C.H., Act, the Consolidation Authorities have no jurisdiction to pass an order of exchange. The provision for exchange exists only under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and a detailed procedure is prescribed for the purpose. Exchange even under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, provides that there should be a comparative valuation of the land sought to be exchanged and only land of equal valuation can be exchanged. This power for exchange is to be exercised by the Additional Commissioner, as provided under Serial No. 13, Schedule II of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and by no other. 11. No such comparison or consideration is to be found in the order of the Consolidation Officer. 12. However, since, the Consolidation Authorities have no jurisdiction to pass an order of exchange, the order of the Consolidation Officer has rightly been set aside by the Courts below, holding it to be wholly without jurisdiction. 13. The view taken by appellate and the Revisional Court are perfectly correct and call for no interference. 14. In so far as the contention is that a road has since been constructed over the plots given by the petitioner in exchange, the same does not improve the petitioner’s case in any manner. The petitioner had obtained a fraudulent order from an authority which has no jurisdiction to pass the same. He therefore, cannot plead on the basis of any allegedly changed circumstances as no equity lies in his favour specially in equity writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. The only other contention which requires consideration is the submission that the appellate order had been passed ex parte. 16. In any case, against the appellate order, the petitioner had preferred a revision which has been dismissed after hearing him. The defect, if any, of the appellate order being ex parte, thus, stands rectified because the Revisional Court has passed an order affirming the appellate order, after hearing the petitioner. 17. In view of the above, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders, which as already stated herein above are perfectly justified and in accordance with law. 17. In view of the above, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders, which as already stated herein above are perfectly justified and in accordance with law. Moreover, these orders have rendered substantial justice between the parties. 18. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.