Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 379 (ALL)

Shyama Vidhya Niketan v. State of U. P.

2020-02-04

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. In both these cases similar controversy is involved and therefore, a common judgment is being passed. 3. Both these writ petitions arise out of an objection under section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act allegedly filed by the petitioners and is directed against the order dated 1.1.2002 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Dibiyapur, District Auraiya. 4. It appears that on an objection filed under section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 20.10.1989 regarding plot No. 40/2/1 area (1.40 Acre). 5. The petitioners filed the aforesaid objection claiming to be a Registered Society, duly registered under the Societies Registration Act which was running as an educational institution. The plot in question namely plot No. 40/2/1 was recorded as Usar in the revenue record of Village Umri, Dibiyapur, Etawah (now District Auraiya) in the basic year Khatauni. This plot on the objection of the petitioners was reserved for play ground and Agriculture Farm by the Consolidation Officer because even the Gaon Sabha had no objection to such reservation. 6. It has also been contended that the order of Consolidation Officer was given effect in the revenue record. Nine years later, on a complaint and after obtaining reports from the Revenue Authorities, this order was recalled by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 1.1.2002. 7. It is this order of the Consolidation Officer which has been challenged before this Court on the ground that Consolidation Officer had earlier allowed the objection under section 9-A(2) filed by the petitioners and same authority could not set aside the order as it did not possess any power to review. 8. The second contention of Counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order dated 1.1.2002 passed by the Consolidation Officer is an ex-parte order as the same has been passed without any notice or information to the petitioners. 9. It is no doubt true, from the perusal of the impugned order it cannot be said that order has been passed after hearing the petitioners. 9. It is no doubt true, from the perusal of the impugned order it cannot be said that order has been passed after hearing the petitioners. It however, transpires from the record that proceedings wherein the order in favour of the petitioners passed in the year 1989 has been ordered to be expunged were drawn on the directions of Consolidation Commissioner vide letter dated 2.8.2001, issued consequent to the complaint of one Mijaji Lal, resident of Village Umari. 10. The order passed on the objection filed by the petitioner was to be effect that plot in question namely 40/2/1 having an area 1.40 Acres be reserved for public purpose namely play ground and agriculture farm. 11. In fact any such reservation would have been made only on an objection under section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and not on an objection under section 9-A(2) of Consolidation of Holdings Act, as has been done. It is this entry which has been ordered to be expunged. 12. The property belonging to Gaon Sabha even on date is still recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. It is only its reservation for play ground and agriculture farm, which has been ordered to be expunged. 13. Since the petitioner is not the owner of the property, which admittedly still vests in the Gaon Sabha, the petitioner is an entirely unconcerned persons. 14. In any case, it appears that on the basis of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in the year 1989, the petitioners may be using this land. Mere user of the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha will grant no right to the user, as no right and accrue in favour of any person or unauthorized occupant, over Gaon Sabha property. 15. In view of the above and since the petitioners are not found to be a person aggrieved, the contention that order has been passed ex parte against him does not merit any interference by this Court. 16. In any case, the petitioners are before this Court in equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and since this Court finds that substantial justice have been done by the order impugned and property belonging to the Gaon Sabha is sought to be secured, the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with. 17. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, both the writ petitions are dismissed.