Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 10 (ALL)

Rajendra Pratap Sagar v. State of U. P.

2023-01-02

DINESH PATHAK

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha/respondent no.7 and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 6. 2. Petitioners have invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 593 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others) and three separate orders dated 26.11.2019 passed in case No. 628 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others), 660 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others) and 630 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others) respectively. 3. Grievance of the petitioners is that the Consolidation Officer has passed the impugned orders without issuing any notice to the recorded tenure holders and without affording them opportunity of hearing. 4. Instant writ petition relates to plots No. 1418/7, 1193, 1574/2 and 1188 which were record in the name of Shyam Lal and others respectively. Against the aforesaid entries, consolidator has submitted separate reports dated 15.11.2019 and 19.11.2019 respectively for expunging the names of recorded tenure holders from the revenue records. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid report submitted by the Consolidator, reports dated 21.11.2019 and 26.11.2019 were prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and he referred the matter to the Consolidation Officer for passing appropriate order to expunge the name of respective recorded tenure holders from plots No. 1418/7, 1193, 1574/2 and 1188, as mentioned above. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid reports dated 21.11.2019 and 26.11.2019, case has been registered under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act being case Nos. 593 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others), 628 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others), 660 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others) and 630 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others) respectively. After receiving the aforesaid reports, Consolidation Officer on same date i.e. 21.11.2019 and 26.11.2019 respectively has passed the orders with respect to the plots No. 1418/7, 1193, 1574/2 and 1188 respectively directing to expunge of the name of the recorded tenure holders from the revenue record, which are challenged in the instant writ petition. 7. Shyam Lal and others) respectively. After receiving the aforesaid reports, Consolidation Officer on same date i.e. 21.11.2019 and 26.11.2019 respectively has passed the orders with respect to the plots No. 1418/7, 1193, 1574/2 and 1188 respectively directing to expunge of the name of the recorded tenure holders from the revenue record, which are challenged in the instant writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that reports dated 21.11.2019 & 26.11.2019 submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was entertained on the same day i.e. 21.11.2019 & 26.11.2019 by the Consolidation Officer and without issuing any notice to the recorded tenure holders and without affording them any opportunity of hearing, impugned orders have been passed to expunge their names from the revenue record. It is further submitted that the names are recorded since long in the revenue record and the valuable rights are vested in the recorded tenure holders over the property in question, therefore, the name of the recorded tenure holders cannot be expunged in such a manner, and it can be done only in accordance with law. It is next contended that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer is illegal and suffers with infirmities, therefore, same shall be quashed. 8. Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that the land in question is a Gaon Sabha property, which has illegally been got recorded in the name of the recorded tenure holders, therefore, in the matter of fraud, there is no need for giving any opportunity of hearing to the recorded tenure holders. 9. On the pointed query made to the learned Standing Counsel with respect to the opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioners, he is not in a position to deny the fact that opportunity was not afforded to the recorded tenure holders. It is next contended that order passed by the Consolidation Officer is legal and sustainable in the eye of law, therefore, petition may be dismissed in limine. 10. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, I found nothing convincing that proper and effective opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the recorded tenure holders before expunging their name from the revenue record. Long standing entry made in the name of recorded tenure holders has illegally been expunged without giving any notice and without affording opportunity of hearing. 11. Long standing entry made in the name of recorded tenure holders has illegally been expunged without giving any notice and without affording opportunity of hearing. 11. Record on board reveals that on the basis of the reports dated 15.11.2019 & 19.11.2019 submitted by the Consolidator, the Assistant Consolidation Officer has made reports dated 21.11.2019 & 26.11.2019 and referred the matter before the Consolidation Officer, who has acted hurriedly on the same day i.e. 21.11.2019 & 26.11.2019 in accepting the recommendation made by Assistant Consolidation Officer to expunge the name of the recorded tenure holders from the plot in question. There is no indication of issuance of notice to the recorded tenure holders before passing the orders dated 21.11.2019 & 26.11.2019. 12. Reports dated 21.11.2019 & 26.11.2019 submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer reveals that it has been submitted in a printed proforma by filling blanks. In the penultimate paragraph of the said report, there is a reference of issuance of notice and parties were directed to appear before the Consolidation Officer. Perusal of the report reveals that everything has been concluded in a very mechanical manner on the same day i.e. 21.11.2019 & 26.11.2019 without adhering to the legal provisions. Sheer formalities have been completed in submission of reports, issuance of notices and passing the final orders by the Consolidation Officer. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the Court that the identical matters came up before this Court for consideration in Civil Mic. Writ Petition i.e. Writ-B No. 561 of 2021 (Makhanchu Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), Writ-B No. 575 of 2021 (Lautu Ram & Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), Writ-B No. 578 of 2021 (Arjun Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) and Writ-B No. 2000 of 2021 (Suresh Kumar & Another Vs. DDC & 3 Others). Aforesaid writ petitions were allowed on the same day considering the illegality in the impugned order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Copies of the said orders are annexed with the present petition. In view of the orders passed in the aforesaid petitions, counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant writ petition may also be allowed. 14. Aforesaid writ petitions were allowed on the same day considering the illegality in the impugned order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Copies of the said orders are annexed with the present petition. In view of the orders passed in the aforesaid petitions, counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant writ petition may also be allowed. 14. In view of the above, Court is of the considered view that the Consolidation Officer has committed manifest error in passing the ex-parte orders dated 21.11.2019 & 26.11.2019, expunging the name of the recorded tenure holders that too without issuing any notice and without affording them an opportunity of hearing, which is violation of natural justice and fair play. There is no justification to expunge the long standing entry made in favour of the recorded tenure holders, which amounts to depriving them of their valuable legal rights over the property in question, which cannot be done without following the provisions of law. 15. Resultantly, the instant writ petition succeeds and allowed. Impugned orders dated 21.11.2019 & 26.11.2019 passed in case Nos. 593 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others), 628 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others), 660 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others) and 630 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others) respectively are hereby quashed. 16. Matter before the Consolidation Officer is restored, which was initiated on the basis of the reports dated 21.11.2019 & 26.11.2019 submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Parties are relegated before the Consolidation Officer to contest the matter and adduce their evidences in support of their case to protect their right and title over the property in question. 17. It is expected that above mentioned case, as pending before the Consolidation Officer, shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of five months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, by reasoned and speaking orders, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, without granting unnecessary adjournments. 18. Petitioners are directed to appear before the Consolidation Officer concerned on or before January 23, 2023.