Girjesh Kumar vs Dy. Director of Consolidation/Chief Revenue Officer and Others

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri D.D. Chauhan for the Gaon Sabha-respondent No. 4, and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Even though the matter was taken up in the revised list none has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 8.

The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.6.2014 passed by the respondent No. 1 the order dated 26.11.2006 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the order dated 5.9.1995 passed by the respondent No. 3.

The dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot No. 86/2 area 0.225 of village Gulariha Sirma, Tappa-Koraun, Pargana Mahuli Paschim, Tehsil and District Basti. Admittedly this land was recorded as banjar in the revenue records.

An objection under section 9-B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act is said to have been filed by Harish Chandra, father of respondent No. 5 and husband respondent No. 7. This objection was filed on the ground that the objector was in possession over the land in question, since prior to the abolition of zamindari. He had constructed his house and his sahan etc. existed thereon. The land was wrongly recorded as banjar.

The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 5.9.1995, after obtaining a report in this regard, ordered that the land be recorded as abadi under class-6.

Thereafter it appears that the Gaon Sabha passed a resolution that plot Nos. 86, 81 and 83 be reserved for a Kanya Vidyalaya. On the basis of the resolution aforesaid, the Consolidation Officer on 16.1.2001 passed an order directing that plot No. 81 area 0.95, 83 area 0.071 and 86 area 0.326 be reserved in the name of Kanya Vidyalaya Gulariha Sirma.

The order of the Consolidation Officer dated 16.1.2001 was challenged by Harish Chandra, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 5 and 7, as also by the State. The appeals were numbered as appeals 95 and 96, respectively. Both the cases were consolidated and decided together by a common judgment. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation by his order dated 26.11.2008 allowed the appeal No. 95 and the reservation of the land in favour of the Kanya Vidyalaya was set aside.

The petitioner filed a revision No. 2308 (Girjesh Kumar v. Indumeet) against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 26.11.2008. Initially this revision was allowed on 26.1.2010, the orders impugned were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision. Subsequently a recall application filed by the respondents 5 to 8, was allowed and the order dated 21.6.2010 was recalled on the ground that it was ex parte. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 by his order dated 26.1.2014 dismissed the revision and affirmed the order dated 26.11.2008. Hence this writ petition challenging the appellate and revisional orders as also the order dated 5.9.1995 passed by Consolidation Officer whereby plot No. 86/2 was ordered to be recorded as abadi under class-6 by changing its class from class-5, namely banjar.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land in question was land of public utility under section 132 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and that the Consolidation Authorities had no jurisdiction to change the nature of land from banjar to abadi.

A supplementary counter affidavit was filed wherein the facts of the case noted above, have been reiterated and on that basis it has been submitted that writ petition is liable to be dismissed. An affidavit in reply has also been filed by the petitioner which is available on record. The only averment of consequence in the rejoinder affidavit is that land in question was public utility land under section 132 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act but it has not been so restored by the order impugned and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel of the parties and have perused the record.

As already noted herein above the writ petition challenges the orders passed by the Consolidation Officers, Settlement Officer, Consolidation as also the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It further emerges from the perusal of the record that the petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer in so far as it relates to plot No. 86/2 area 0.225 which was recorded as banjar but has been directed to be recorded as abadi by the order of 5.9.1995 as also the order passed on 26.11.2008 affirming this order. By this appellate order, another order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 16.1.2001 whereby portion of plot No. 86 was reserved for Kanya Vidyalaya was set aside. This order has been affirmed by the Revisional Court. None has come forward on behalf of Kanya Vidyalaya and, therefore, the appellate and revisional orders in so far as they pertain to the de-reservation of various plots reserved for Kanya Pathshala are not under challenge and, therefore, that aspect of the matter requires no consideration in this writ petition.

As far as the order dated 5.9.1995 is concerned the same has directed that land recorded as banjar be recorded as abadi under class-6. There is no direction in the order dated 5.9.1995 that this should recorded as abadi of the respondents and, therefore, the petitioner has no reason to aggrieved by the order. More order banjar is not land of public utility under section 132 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act.

It is not the case of the petitioner that he has any right, title or interest in this land. He has filed the writ petition on the allegation that he is a resident of the village and, therefore, he has an interest in the property belonging to the Gaon Sabha specially land of public utility. As already observed, banjar is not land of public utility under section 132 of the Zamindari Abolition Act. The petitioner is, therefore, has no locus to challenge the order changing the class of land.

Besides, it has been recorded by the Courts below that constructions exists over the land in question and, therefore, directed to be recorded as abadi under class-6. I find no illegality in the order in this regard. The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is dismissed.