Indra Pal Singh and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

The contention raised is that in spite of the direction of this Court, the Settlement Officer Consolidation has not applied his mind on the issue relating to the maintainability of the appeal through a Stranger. Sri Agarwal vehemently submits that the procedure having not been followed and the order of this Court not having been complied with, the proceedings before the Settlement Officer Consolidation are incompetent. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the proceedings before the Settlement Officer Consolidation should not be allowed to continue.

Sri D.D. Chauhan, learned Counsel for Gaon Sabha, points out from the memo of appeal which is Annexure-7, that the land in dispute had been wrongly recorded in the Khata of the father of Mohan Lal. The Petitioners claim to be the vendees of Mohan Lal. It is submitted that since the land was that of Gaon Sabha and not of the father of Mohan Lal, therefore, this matter requires investigation and hence the appeal was very much competent.

Sri Yogesh Agarwal submits that since the name of Ayodhya, Mohan Lal''s father was entered in the basic year, therefore, he had a right to sell the land and this aspect of the matter has not been investigated by the Settlement Officer Consolidation hence the appeal was not competent.

From a perusal of the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, it appears that the status of Respondent No. 3 has been accepted to maintain the appeal keeping in view the allegations contained in the memo of appeal. Sri Yogesh Agarwal has relied on the decision in the case of Gram Samaj, Kairadih, through Sabhapati Ram Ujagar, Jaunpur v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow Camp,1 to contend that in the absence of any competent resolution of the Land Management Committee, such an appeal through a stranger on behalf of the Gaon Sabha would not be maintainable.

It appears that on account of these technical difficulties, the legislature brought about the provisions of Section 11-C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 in 1974 quoted hereunder:

11-C. In the course of hearing of an objection u/s 9-A or an appeal u/s 11, or in proceedings u/s 48, the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Director of Consolidation, as the case may be, may direct that any land which vests in the State Government or the Gaon Sabha or any other local body or authority may be recorded in its name, even though No. objection, appeal or revision has been filed by such Government, Gaon Sabha, body or authority.

The aforesaid section, therefore, reflects that the interest of the Gaon Sabha has to be protected by the authorities themselves in exercise of their suo motu powers even if No. objection is filed, provided the dispute relates to Gaon Sabha. In view of the wide powers conferred on the Consolidation Authorities which they possess at every stage, the provisions of Section 11-C are squarely attracted in such situations. The dispute which is sought to be raised by the Petitioner is not available in view of the clear legislative intent indicated herein above. The decision in the case of Gram Samaj, Kairadih (supra) is a pre-amendment judgment of 1969 which would accordingly not come to the aid of the Petitioner. The appellate authority shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.