Mohd. Sheoii (Dead) vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Azamgarh & Ors.

U. S. Tripathi, J.—This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 2641976 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Axamgarh in revision No. 274, on the basis of which entry in favour of petitioner over plot No. 406 was expunged, vide order dated 12121980.

During consolidation operation in village Basaratpur, Tahsil Ghosi, District Azamgarh a partal was done and the area of plot No. 406 was found 180 karis on the spot, in khata No. 193 but entry in khata No. 193 in the name of Gaon Sabha was regarding 500 karis. According to entry at the spot 320 kari area of khata No. 481 found in the name of respondents ilnd set. The remaining areas of 320 kari were found in the khata No. 1 22 jointly recorded in the names of petitioners along with respondents IVth set. The Consolidation Officer decided the matter in case No. 1453 under Section 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and corrected the entry of 500 kari reducing it to 280 kari, vide its judgment dated 2871973. The objection was filed by one Sagir alleging that he had his abadi of 50 kari land in plot No. 406. One Abdul Hamid also filed objection alleging that 425 karis of the said plot was his abadi. However, Gaon Sabha did not file any objection. The Consolidation Officer had not passed any order in respect of Khata No. 122 and confined its order in respect of Khata Nos. 48 and 193. The respondents Ilnd set filed appeal No. 1058 of 1974 against the said judgment of Consolidation" Officer dated 641974. The Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidatioa) dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 571974. there after , respondents Ilnd set filed revision No. 274 under Section 148 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The petitioners and the respondent IVth set were not irnpleaded as party in the said revision. In the said revision the Deputy Director of Consolidation disturbed entry of khata No. 122, which was recorded in the name of petitioners and declared it to be abadi of Gaon Sabha, vide order dated 2641976. On the basis of it entries were made in Khatauni on 12121980, by which 210 kari area of plot No. 406 was recorded as abadi class 6 and remaining 210 kari area of said plot was entered in the name of Gaon Sabha.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Indra Sen Singh Tomar, learned Counsel for respondentNo. 22 and perused the record.

The only point, which was urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners was that the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had not recorded any finding regarding khata No. 122 containing plot No. 406. The petitioners were not made party before the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation. In the revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation the petitioners were also not made party, but the Deputy Director of Consolidation without impleading the petitioners passed order regarding deletion of entry in favour of the petitioners in respect of khata No. 122 containing plot No. 406 and therefore, the impugned order was illegal and is liable to be quashed.

It is not disputed that during consolidation operation, the area of plot No. 406 was found on the spot as 820 kari, 500 kari was recorded in khata No. 193 in the name of Gaon Sabha, which during partal was found 180 kari, an area of 320 kari of said plot was recorded in khata No. 48 in the name of respondents Ilnd set. The same area was found on the spot during partal. The remainingarea was recorded in khata No. 122. The Consolidation Officer expunged the entry in respect of khata No. 48, which included plot No. 406. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) confirmed the above order of the Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal. The above order was not in respect of khata No. 122 containing plot No. 406. It is also not disputed that petitioners were not party before Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Against the order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) the respondents Ilnd set preferred revision No. 274 of 1974 under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, but the petitioners were not impleaded in the said revision also. That the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation was also in respect of khata No. 122 containing plot No. 100 and by the impugned order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had ordered that 210 kari area of plot No. 406 be recorded abadi of class 6 and remaining 610 kari area be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. Thus, by the impugned order, the area of plot No. 406, which was recorded in khata No. 122 in the name of petitioners was also ordered to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The above order amounted expunction of the name of petitioners recorded over plot No. 406 of khata No. 122, but they were not heard before passing the impugned order and therefore, they were deprived of their legal right of putting their case before Deputy Director of Consolidation. Since, the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was passed without impleading the petitioners and also without hearing them, it cannot stand against the petitioners and is liable to be quashed. The writ petition accordingly, succeeds.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order dated 2641976 and order dated 12121980 passed in consequence of the said order are quashed and the case is sent back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation concerned with a direction that he will issue notices to the petitioners as well as respondent No. 22 and other persons recorded over plot No. 406 and then pass suitable o rder after hearing them at an early date.