Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2372 (ALL)

Ram Jiyawan v. State Of UP

2024-11-19

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Shri Rahul Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. Supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Village Tendua Pargana Badhahar Tehsil Ghorawal District Sonbhadra came under operation of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act by way of notification issued under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act. During consolidation proceeding, an order dated 5.9.2003 was passed by Consolidation Officer deciding the inter-se dispute between petitioners and respondent no.4. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 5.9.2003, an appeal was filed before Settlement Officer Consolidation which was dismissed vide order dated 29.6.2006. Contesting respondent no.4 filed a revision under Section 4 8 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation against the appellate order dated 29.6.2006 which has been registered as revision No. 32/ 138 of 2007. During pendency of the aforementioned revision, an order dated 17.11.2006 was passed by District Magistrate/ District Deputy Director of Consolidation Sonbhadra on the basis of the order/ letter dated 20.4.2006 issued by Consolidation Commissioner U.P. Lucknow for cancelling the proceeding up to the stage of Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act and for initiating fresh consolidation proceeding in the Village in question. On the basis of the order dated 17.11.2006 passed by District Magistrate/ District Deputy Director of Consolidation, an order dated 19.6.2007 was passed by respondent no.2 staying the proceeding of revision No. 32/ 138 under Section 4 8 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act. In pursuance of the order dated 17.11.2006, proceeding under Section 8 of the U.P.C.H. Act was completed in the Village on 20.9.2009/ 23.11.2012, proceeding under Section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act was completed on 31.12.2012 and proceeding under Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act was completed on 28.2.2014. Village in question was notified under Section 23 of U.P.C.H. Act on 4.6.2015 and notification under Section 52 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act in respect to the Village in question has been issued on 16.6.2017. Village in question was notified under Section 23 of U.P.C.H. Act on 4.6.2015 and notification under Section 52 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act in respect to the Village in question has been issued on 16.6.2017. Petitioners filed an application dated 3.3.2023 before Consolidation Officer in the proceeding under Section 9 A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act stating that in view of the earlier adjudication take place between the parties by consolidation authorities,the petitioners are entitled to be recorded over the plot in question and no further adjudication is required in the matter. The aforementioned application dated 3.3.2023 filed by petitioners has been rejected by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29.12.2023 and fix the proceeding for evidence for the parties. Petitioners challenged the order of Consolidation Officer dated 29.12.2023 by way of revision under Section 4 8 of U.P.C.H. Act which has been rejected vide order dated 14.3.2024. Hence this writ petition for the following relief:- "Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 14.3.2024 passed by respondent no.2 in revision No. 0045 of 2024, computer case No. 0045 of 2024, computer case No. 202454166600000045 Ram Jiyawan and others Vs. Bhagwan Das, the impugned judgment and order dated 29.12.2023, passed by respondent no.3 in computer cases No. 2021551666030002, 2021551666030003, 202155166603004, State Vs. Bhagwan Das and Others as well as the impugned jugement and order dated 19.6.2007 passed by the respondent no.2 in revision No. 32/138 of 2007." 4. This Court on 27.8.2024 passed the following order:- "1. It is submitted that vide notification dated 20.04.2006 passed by the Consolidation Commissioner and in pursuance thereof subsequent notification dated 17.11.2006 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, only proceeding relating to Provisional Consolidation Scheme under Sections 19 and 20 has been abated and directed to be restarted. Therefore, aforesaid notification would not have any bearing upon the proceeding decided under Section 9 -A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. It is next submitted that as per own finding recorded by Consolidation Officer in order dated 29.12.2023, village is denotified under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act, therefore, Consolidation Officer has got no jurisdiction to reopen the case which has already been decided in proceeding under Section 9 -A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. 2. Learned Standing Counsel has tried to establish that, vide notification issued by Consolidation Commissioner, entire consolidation proceeding from Section 7 to Section 20 has been cancelled and directed to be restarted. 2. Learned Standing Counsel has tried to establish that, vide notification issued by Consolidation Commissioner, entire consolidation proceeding from Section 7 to Section 20 has been cancelled and directed to be restarted. However, original notification dated 20.04.2006 passed by Consolidation Commissioner is not on the record. It is not clarified as well as to when village has been denotified under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act and, in case, notification under Section 52 took place, how Consolidation Operation is going on in Village- Tendua. 3. Learned Standing Counsel has prayed for and granted three weeks' time to seek instructions from the authorities concerned. 4. List this matter on 20.09.2024 in top ten cases of the additional cause list." 5. In compliance of the order dated 27.8.2024, instruction dated 24.9.2024 and 30.9.2024 sent by Consolidation Officer Ghorawal District Sonbhadra are already taken on record. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act in respect to the Village in question, the title objection under Section 9 A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has been decided by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 5.9.2003 and appeal filed by private respondents was dismissed on 29.6.2006, as such, further adjudication of the dispute by the consolidation authorities between the same parties is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. He submitted that notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act issued in respect to the Village in question has not been set aside by any authority, as such, further adjudication of the dispute by the consolidation authorities on the basis of the administrative order passed by the authorities is wholly illegal. He further submitted that Village has not been notified under Section 6 of the U.P.C.H. Act, as such, further adjudication could not take place by the consolidation authorities rather the adjudication which has already taken place between the parties shall operate as res-judicata between the same parties. He further submitted that in pursuance of the administrative order issued by the superior consolidation authority, proceeding like allotment of chak would be affected but in the garb of administrative order, Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot stay the revisional proceeding which was initiated by the party against the adjudication of the title dispute by the consolidation authorities. He further submitted that in pursuance of the administrative order issued by the superior consolidation authority, proceeding like allotment of chak would be affected but in the garb of administrative order, Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot stay the revisional proceeding which was initiated by the party against the adjudication of the title dispute by the consolidation authorities. He submitted that application filed by petitioner before the Consolidation Officer to drop the subsequent proceeding under Section 9 A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has illegally been rejected by the Consolidation Officer. He further submitted that revision filed by petitioners against the order rejecting the petitioners' application to drop the subsequent proceeding under Section 9 A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has already been dismissed in arbitrary manner. He submitted that impugned order passed by consolidation authorities be set aside and writ petition be allowed. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2016 (133) R.D. 503 Ram Dawar Yadav and others Vs. Chakbandi Ayukt and another in support of his argument. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents on the basis of the instruction submitted that in view of the order/ letter dated 7.11.2006 as well as 20.4.2006 issued by consolidation authorities, the proceeding up to the stage of Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act was cancelled and fresh consolidation proceeding was ordered to be initiated in the Village in question. He submitted that in pursuance of the letter/ orders of the consolidation authorities, proceeding under Sections 8 ,9,20, 23 of U.P.C.H. Act have been concluded and the village has been denotified under Section 52 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act, as such, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner to give finality to the earlier orders passed under section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act before passing of the letter/ order dated 17.11.2006/ 20.4.2006 is wholly misconceived. He submitted that proceeding under Section 9 A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act is pending before Consolidation Officer, as such, petitioner should participate in the proceeding for adjudication of the title dispute in accordance with law rather to give finality to the earlier order passed by the consolidation authorities. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that Village was notified under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act and the dispute was decided by consolidation authorities but on the basis of the complaint of tenure holders, the proceeding up to the Section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act was cancelled by the consolidation authorities vide order dated 17.11.2006/20.4.2006 and fresh consolidation proceeding was ordered to be initiated. There is also no dispute about the fact that in pursuance of the aforementioned order, the proceeding under Sections 8 ,9,20, 23 has already taken place and the Village has been denotified under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act. There is also no dispute about the fact that dispute relating to the plot in dispute between the petitioners and contesting respondents is pending before Consolidation Officer and the applications filed by petitioners to give finality to earlier orders has been rejected under the impugned orders. 10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of the order/ letter dated 17.11.2006 will be relevant for perusal which is as under:- 11. The perusal of the order/ letter dated 7.11.2006 issued/ passed by District Magistrate/ Deputy Director of Consolidation Sonbhadra, it is very much demonstrated that proceeding up to the stage of Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act was cancelled in respect to the Village in question and fresh consolidation proceeding was ordered to be initiated. In pursuance of the aforementioned order/ letter, the fresh consolidation proceeding/ notifications under Sections 8 ,9,20 and 23 have already taken place as well as Village has been denotified under Section 52 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act vide notification dated 16.6.2017. The dispute under Section 9 A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act is pending before Consolidation Officer in respect to the plot in question before Consolidation Officer. 12. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable in the instant matter, as such, the same cannot be relied upon in the instant matter. 13. The dispute under Section 9 A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act is pending before Consolidation Officer in respect to the plot in question before Consolidation Officer. 12. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable in the instant matter, as such, the same cannot be relied upon in the instant matter. 13. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners to give finality to the earlier orders passed under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act cannot be accepted as the proceeding up to the stage of Section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act has already been cancelled by consolidation authorities and fresh consolidation proceeding has started, as such, there is no question to give finality to the earlier orders passed by the consolidation authorities between petitioners and respondent no.4. 14. No interference is required in the matter. 15. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed 16. No order as to costs.