Antyoday Sewa Samiti Through Its Mantri Shanker Pal Singh vs District Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Collector, Etah and Others

Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.06.2008 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Etah in Revision No.71 of 2008 State Vs. Antyoday Sewa Samiti. By impugned order dated 27.06.2008 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Etah an area 10.04 hectare land which is approximately equal to 25.36 acre land is directed to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha of concerned village by expunging the revenue entries recoreded name of the petitioner from the said land on finding that the aforesaid revenue entries are forged, fictitious and fraudulently recorded in the name of the petitioner.

Office has reported that writ petition is barred by time by one year and 305 days. The aforesaid delay caused in moving writ petition has been explained by the petitioner. Accordingly, the delay in moving writ petition is hereby condoned and same is treated to be within time.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merit at length and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

The impugned order dated 27.06.2008 appears to have been passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision filed by the State Government, after thorough inquiry conducted through Consolidation Officer and Subdivisional officer and it was found that the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 27.12.1978 allegedly passed in the Appeal No. 266 of 1978, whereby the order of Consolidation Officer dated 22.3.1977 was allegedly set aside recording the name of the petitioner, over disputed plots, were not in actual existence at all rather the aforesaid orders were a forged documents and fraudulently prepared by the petitioner to grab such a huge land of Gaon Sabha, as such, the entries made in favour of petitioner is without any legal and factual basis rather they are forged, fictitious, fabricated and made fraudulently, therefore, the name of the petitioner over the plots in dispute was directed to be expunged from revenue records with further direction to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid revision was filed on 16.6.2008 in pursuant to inquiry made by authorities concerned on the basis of some complaint against the aforesaid entries recorded in the name of the petitioner and the said revision was heard on 23.06.2008 and order was passed on 27.06.2008 without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner merely after hearing of Government advocate of the district concerned though the impugned order has adversely affected rights and interests of the petitioner, as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed being in utter violation of principles of natural justice.

At the strength of assertions made in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that initially the land was alloted to the petitioner on 12.12.1967 by land Management Committee of the Village in question by executing a lease deed in favour of the petitioner for the development purposes and on 22.3.1977 the objection filed by the petitioner for mutation of its name was dismissed by Consolidation Officer against which petitioner filed appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was allowed on 27.12.1978 and order passed by Consolidation Officer dated 22.3. 1977 was set aside with further direction to record in the name of the petitioner over the disputed plots. In pursuance of the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation Officer dated 27.12.1978 the name of petitioner was recorded over revenue record in Khatauni of years 1399 Fasali to 1405 Fasali and further in Khatauni of the village concern for years 1412 Fasali to 1417 Fasali. The SubDivisional Officer, Etah has also conferred Bhumidhari with transferable rights to the petitioner on 7.5.1978, but after lapse of 29 years from the date of execution of aforesaid lease in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of exparte inquiry held against him, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed impugned order, without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner thereby directed that the of name of the petitioner be expunged from revenue records from the plots in dispute with the further direction to record the said land in the name of Goan Sabha.

For a better appreciation of question in controversy involved in the present case it would be appropriate to extract the entire order dated 27.06.2008 passed by District Deputy Director of Consolidation impugned in the writ petition as under:

From a perusal of impugned order dated 27.6.2008 passed by District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Etah it is clear that the District District Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that the basis on which the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue record over the plots in dispute was the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 27.12.1978 allegedly passed in Appeal No.266, whereby he had alleged to have set aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 22.3.1977 and directed the name of the petitioner to be recorded over the plots in dispute by expunging the name of Gaon Sabha. But on the basis of inquiry held by Consolidation Officer and Sub Divisional Officer the District Deputy Director Consolidation Officer has held that neither any such order dated 22.3.1977 was found to have been passed by Consolidation Officer nor any such order dated 27.12.1978 was found to have been passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on the basis of which the petitioner''s name has been entered and recorded in revenue record over the plots in dispute for the first time in the Khatauni year 1399 Fasali to 1405 Fasali which pertains to the year 1992. It is further found on the basis of inquiry held by Consolidation Officer and SubDivisional Officer in the record office that there was no record pertaining to alleged cases decided by Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and aforesaid orders passed by those officers though the other orders of Consolidation Officer and Settlement of Consolidation in respect of other persons are available in the record office therefore the name of the petitioner recorded over the dispute plots in of Khatauni of years 1399 to 1405 Fasali and years 1412 Fasali to 1417 and other forms of consolidation proceeding are wholly fake and fictitious entry and without any legal and factual foundation for the same. After referring several authorities on the point, he has held that in given facts and circumstances of the case, it was not necessary for him to hear the petitioner before the impugned order passed by him, in my opinion rightly so.

The view taken by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation appears to be correct for other reasons also, particularly when the lease was executed in favour of the petitioner on 12.12.1967, it is very strange to say that petitioner has filed objection for mutating its name during consolidation proceeding after a laps of 10 years in the year 1977 from the date of execution of alleged lease which was allegedly decided by Consolidation Officer, on 22.3.1977. The District Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded findings of fact that for the first time petitioners name appears to have been recorded in the revenue record in 1405 Fasali. Assuming the fact that it was recorded in Khatauni for the year 1399 to 1405 Fasali and further in the Khatauni of the village in the year 1412 to 1417 Fasali, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner but since the Fasali year 1399 corresponds to year 1992, therefore, it is very strange as to why the petitioner''s name could not be recorded for such a long time. It creates further reasonable doubt in the mind of the court about the genuineness of execution of said lease in favour of the petitioner in the year 1967, and doubt about the genuineness of the order dated 27.12.1978 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in favour of the petitioner.

Not only this but the District Deputy Director of Consolidation has further held on the basis of various observations made in the impugned order that no such orders allegedly passed by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation were available in the record room, whereas other orders passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation U/s 11 of U.P.C.H. Act were available in the record room as such on that basis he has held that these entries in favour of the petitioner made in revenue record are totally fake, fictitious, bogus and have no factual and legal basis at all. He has also recorded a finding that the land was banjar of Gaon Sabha and no such land could be allotted in favour of the petitioner by the Gaon Sabha and in fact no allotment was shown to have been made in favour of the petitioner. Besides this, it is also held by District Deputy Director of Consolidation that the petitioner has also sought declaration of aforesaid land from agricultural to abadi land U/s 143 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act., but which appears to have not been pursued to its logical end. Thus the District Deputy Director of Consolidation has found that the aforesaid entries recorded in the name of petitioner in revenue record over the plots in dispute are totally forged, fictitious, fraudulent and bogus entries, therefore, directed to be expunged from the name of petitioner. In my considered opinion also the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is perfectly justified and cannot be called into question, even if the petitioner was not heard before such order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not place any other material except the true copy of that forged order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 27.12.1978, on the basis of which any indulgence in favour of the petitioner can be granted by this Court. In given facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner can not dispute the aforesaid facts recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as such on the basis of indisputable facts stated in the impugned order in my considered opinion, no other inference could be drawn by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, providing further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by setting aside impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation can not only be an empty formality, rather such opportunity of hearing to the petitioner would infact provide further opportunity and leverage to the petitioner for playing foul and doing manipulation, in the atmosphere of rampant corruption prevalent in public life and public administration. Having regard to the market value of disputed land to the tune of Rs. crores and heavy stake of the petitioner involved in the case, the manipulation of Village Pradhan alongwith the Land Management Committee of the Village concern, and officer dealing with the case including other higher ups, at the strength of money and other sort of manipulation can easily be understood, therefore on this count also. I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

Besides, in S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan A.I.R. 1981 SC 136, the Hon''ble Apex Court, in para 24 of the decision observed that "where on the admitted and indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the court may not issue its writ, to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe the natural justice but because courts do not issue futile writs." The aforesaid view taken in S.L. Kapoor''s case, has again been reiterated by Hon''ble Apex Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1999 SC 2583. holding that "if on the admitted and indisputable factual position, only one conclusion is possible and permissible, the court need not issue a writ merely because. there is violation of principles of natural justice." The aforesaid view taken earlier has been further reiterated by Hon''ble Apex Court, in Canara Bank and others Vs. Debasis Das and others J.T. 2003 (3) S.C. 183 and Canara Bank Vs. V.K. Awasthy J.T. 2005 (4) S.C. 40, and it has been held that in such situation useless formality theory can be pressed into service. Therefore, in given facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and direct any hearing before him, as the petitioner could not place any material before this court on the basis of which this Court can reach to a different conclusion than that of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

There is yet another factor/reason, which has impelled me to refuse discretionary relief under Article 226 in favour of the petitioner. On account of setting aside the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation a forged, fake, fraudulent order of Settlement of Consolidation and pursuant fake, and fictitious entries in revenue records in the name of petitioner would be restored and even, if the Deputy Director of Consolidation would be directed to hear the petitioner there would be further leverage and license to the petitioner to indulge in similar manipulation, as earlier appears to have been done by it, therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in M.C. Mehta''s case (Supra) and in Mohammad Swalleh Vs. Third Addl. District Judge, Meerut (1988) 1 SCC 40 : (AIR 1988 SC 94 ) and Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 828, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation.

The writ petition is devoid of merits accordingly stands dismissed.

Registrar General is directed to communicate this order to District Magistrate, Etah/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Etah forthwith through Fax and also send certified copy of the order, to them through Registered Post.