Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 211 (ALL)

Ratan Singh v. State of U. P.

2023-01-20

DINESH PATHAK

body2023
JUDGMENT Dinesh Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents No. 1 to 4. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that, owing to procedural mistake, the Tehsil Record [Namantaran Bahi- (R-6)]could not properly be prepared in pursuance of the order dated 15.10.1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in reference proceeding No. 1128. 3. From the record it reveals that, to correct the mistake in Namantaran Bahi (R-6) available in Tehsil record room, petitioner has moved an application under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules (in brevity, U.P.C.H. Rules). The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 25.04.2016, has rejected the application, however, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, on appeal being filed on behalf of the petitioner, has allowed the same and issued a direction for correction of the relevant documents in pursuance of the order dated 15.10.1979. Against the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, a restoration application has been filed on behalf of the state authorities which was allowed by order dated 26.04.2021 quashing the earlier order dated 08.03.2017. Having being aggrieved, petitioner has filed revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision and discarded the claim of the petitioner for correction. Having been aggrieved against the said order, instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 15.10.1979 has already been given effect to in CH Form 45 which has been admitted by Deputy Director of Consolidation in its order dated 24.08.2022, however, same correction could not be carried forwarded properly in Namantaran Bahi (R6). It is further submitted that it is normal procedural mistake which can be cured at any stage, inasmuch as, order dated 15.10.1979 has already been given effect to in the main consolidation record. It is further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally dismissed the revision without properly appreciating the law, and the entries in the land record, in the right perspective. It is further submitted that order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and order dated 26.04.2021 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation are liable to be quashed being illegal, unwarranted under the law and cryptic. 5. It is further submitted that order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and order dated 26.04.2021 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation are liable to be quashed being illegal, unwarranted under the law and cryptic. 5. In counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it has been admitted that order dated 15.10.1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has attained finality, inasmuch as, same has not been challenged before any court. In this respect, report submitted by the Joint Committee of Consolidation Lekhpal and Consolidator dated 04.01.2023 has been appended as Annexure-1, wherein, it has specifically been mentioned that order dated 15.10.1979 has became final. Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit, a report of Tehsildar dated 05.01.2023, evince the mistake at the part of the state that, though order dated 15.01.1979 has been implemented in CH Form 45 and same has also been endorsed in the Namantran Bahi (R6), however, required signature of Consolidator and the Assistant Consolidation Officer could not be endorsed against the said entry in R6 to verify the same. For ready reference, joint report dated 04.01.2023, Anneure-1 to counter affidavit and report of Tehsildar dated 05.01.2023, Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit, are reproduced here-in-below:- "Report dated 04.01.2023 lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh] xkft;kcknA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa ;ksftr fjV ;kfpdk la0 3257@2022 jru flag cuke m0iz0 ljdkj ,oa vU; ds lEcU/k esa lknj voxr djkuk gS fd xzke gqlSuiqj ijxuk tykykckn rglhy eksnhuxj ftyk xkft;kckn esa ikfjr vkns'k U;k;ky; mi lapkyd pdcUnh xkft;kckn fuxjkuh la0 1128 vkns'k fnukad 15-10-1979 /kkjk&48¼3½ dk veynjken xzke dh tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i=&45 dh izFke ftYn tks jktLo vfHkys[kkxkj esa lafpr gS ds [kkrk la0 356 vkfn ij fd;k x;k gS ,oa rglhy xkft;kckn esa miyC/k ekydku jftLVj Qlyh lu~ 1389&1392 ds dze la0 14 ist la0 288&289 fd;k x;k gSA egksn;] LFky ij xkVk la0 350@708 ij cztukFk] jru flag] lq/khj dqekj] pUnzequh] iznhi iq=x.k xksihpUn dk dCtk crk;k x;kA U;k;ky; mi lapkyd pdcUnh xkft;kckn fuxjkuh la0 1128 vkns'k fnukad 15-10-1979 ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh foHkkx ls visf{kr ugha gSA Report dated 05.01.2023 dk;kZy; i=kad 2118 rglhynkj@j0dk0&2023 xkft;kckn fnukad% 05-01-23 lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh xkft;kckn d`i;k vius dk;kZy; ds i= la[;k 210@fy0@vkj&109 fnukad 02-01-2023 dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa ftlesa mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd jru flag iq= xihpUn }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 3257@2022 ;ksftr dj U;k;ky; mi lapkyd pdcUnh lUnHkZ la[;k 1128 vUrxZr /kkjk 48¼3½ vkns'k fnukad 15-10-1979 dk vuqikyu xzke ds vfHkys[kksa esa djk;s tkus dh ekax dh x;h gSA jktLo vfHkys[kkxkj esa lafpr tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i=&45 ds [kkrk la[;k 356 o vU; lEcfU/kr [kkrks ij rRle; fd;k tk pqdk gSA vkSj vUr esa rRle; ds ekydku jftLVj ¼vkj&6½ ij xzke gqlSuiqj ijxuk tykykckn rRdkyhu rglhy o ftyk xkft;kckn ds lEcfU/kr i`"Bksa dk voyksdu djkdj ;g voxr djkus ds mDr vkns'k fnukad 15-10-1979 dk veynjken ekydku jftLVj ij fd;k x;k gSa vFkok ugha] ds lEcU/k esa vk[;k miyC/k djkus dh vis{kk dh xbZ gSA mDr ds lEcU/k esa jktLo vfHkys[kkxkj rglhy xkft;kckn esa miyC/k ukekUrj.k cgh ¼vkj&6½ dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ukekUrj.k cgh o"kZ 1389&1392Q ¼f}rh; ftYn½ ijxuk tykykckn ds i`"B la[;k 289 ij mdr~ vkns'k dk veynjken fd;k x;k gSA ijUrq fu;ekuqlkj veynjken djus ds i'pkr pdcUnh drkZ o lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk vkns'k ds izekf.kdj.k ds lEcU/k esa gLrk{kj ugha fd;s x;s gSA ekydku jftLVj lR; izfrfyfi 'kkldh; dk;Z gsrq layxz dj lsok esa izsf"kr gSA** 6. Considering the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it reveals that the procedural mistake, which has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been admitted on behalf of the state authorities. Report dated 05.01.2023 submitted by the Tehsildar, Gaziabad clearly reveals that order dated 15.10.1979 was given effect to in CH Form 45 and same was also carried forwarded in Namantran Bahi (R6) of the year 1389- 1392F(second Jild). However, as per the legal formalities, same could not be verified by the authorized authorities, namely, Consolidator and the Assistant Consolidation Officer. 7. Considering the simple procedural mistake, Settlement Officer of Consolidation has allowed the appeal, vide order dated 08.03.2017, however same has illegally been recalled and thereafter revision has been dismissed on technical ground of laches and maintainability of the application under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules. Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the application on the ground of maintainability citing the reason that the order which was passed before the denotification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act or the order which has already been given effect to in the land record, an application under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Act is not maintainable qua giving effect to such orders. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that, de-notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act was promulgated on 04.08.1979, as reflected from query form (Annexure-R.A.-1), prior to the order dated 15.10.1979, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in reference proceeding. It appears that Deputy Director of Consolidation has misread and misinterpreted the legal provisions of law and the grievance as raised on behalf of the petitioner. In fact, order dated 15.10.1979 has already been given effect to in the CH Form 45 and in the record which is maintained in Tehsil Record room i.e. R6. However, in the second copy, which is R6, as available in the record room of the Tehsil, entry could not be verified by the authority concerned i.e. Consolidator and the Assistant Consolidation Officer, as admitted on behalf of the state in its counter affidavit. Verification process is a simple procedural mistake which does not amount any change in the land record. Verification process is a simple procedural mistake which does not amount any change in the land record. Therefore, authorities concerned cannot turn a blind eye with respect to the procedural mistake which occured owing to the slackness in the official duty at the part of the persons concerned who were appointed for the particular purposes at the relevant time. It is the duty if the State authorities to prepare the record properly as per Rules made under the U.P.C.H. Act and the Consolidation Manual. For the mistake at the part of the State authorities, petitioner or any tenure holder cannot be punished. It is very unfortunate and sorry state of affairs at the part of the State authorities that the petitioner is running from pillar to post since last several years to get the record corrected in pursuance of the order dated 15.10.1979, whereas entry has already been made but has got no legal sanctity for want of verification by the authority concerned. 9. In this conspectus as above, I found substance in the submission as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the impugned orders passed by consolidation courts. As such, instant writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned orders passed by consolidation courts are hereby quashed. Consolidation Authorities, as defined under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules, are hereby directed to verify the entry/endorsement as made, in pursuance of order dated 15.10.1979 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, in Namantaran Bahi (R6) available in record room of Tehsil Gaziabad as per report dated 05.01.2023 submitted by Tehsildar Gaziabad (Annexure-2 to counter affidavit) expeditiously, preferably, within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, instant writ petition is disposed of.