Rakesh Kumar vs D.D.C., Sultanpur and Others

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Ram Kushal Tiwari, Counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26.6.2013 and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 31.1.2013 by which the order of the Consolidation Officer has been set aside.

Plot No. 2064 of village Kudvar, pargana Meeranpur, district Sultanpur was recorded as banjar land on the date of notification u/s 4(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). However, on the basis of partal a dispute was raised by some persons claiming their possession over the land in dispute. On the basis of that a reference was made to the Consolidation Officer, who directed for recording of names of the petitioner as well as other persons, who were fond in occupation of different portions of the land in dispute. Subsequently, a time barred appeal has been filed by Mohd. Raza and others. The appeal was heard by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who by the impugned order dated 31.1.2013 held that as the land was banjar land, accordingly the Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction to correct the entries regarding this land. On this finding the appeal was allowed and the entries made by the Consolidation Officer in respect of the petitioner and the other persons were directed to be deleted. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 2318) from the aforesaid order. Another revision was filed by Poorva Madhyamic Vidyalaya (registered as revision No. 2320) from the aforesaid order. Both the revisions were consolidated and decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 26.6.2013 held that plot Nos. 2064 and 2065 were recorded as banjar land as such this land was not falling within the consolidation area and the Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction to make any entry in respect of this area. However, he found that the land in possession of Block Sansadhan Kendra, Kabristan and the School, was the land of public utility, which is apparent from the spot inspection report and as such the entries in favour of Block Sansadhan Kendra, Kabristan and the School have been maintained and the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation deleting the entry in respect of the petitioner has been maintained.

The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the construction of the petitioner is lying over the land in dispute since long before the date of vesting as such the land in dispute was vested in the petitioner u/s 9 of U.P. Act No. 1, 1951. His construction as well as possession was found on the spot during partal by the consolidation authorities as such the name of the petitioner has rightly been directed to be entered over the land in dispute and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has allowed appeal without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner filed the revision but the revision has been dismissed.

I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for Gaon Sabha as well as Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.

Since the land in dispute was banjar land and was not falling within the consolidation area, accordingly, the land was not included in the notification u/s 4(2) of the Act. In view of the fact that the land was banjar land, the Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction to make any entry or to correct entries in respect of this plot, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in this respect does not suffer from any illegality.

So far as the claim of the petitioner that the appeal was allowed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is concerned, since in the revision the petitioner has been fully heard and the revisional Court has passed the order on merit, accordingly, statutory authority has given full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and on this very ground the order cannot be set aside.

The Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the house and construction of the petitioner is standing on the plot in dispute since long before the date of vesting, as such he may be permitted to file civil suit and during this period the authorities may be restrained from ejecting the petitioner as well as demolishing his construction. So far as the right of petitioner to file civil suit or taking any other remedy before the appropriate forum is concerned, since it has been held that the orders of the consolidation authorities are without jurisdiction, accordingly, there is no obstacle for the petitioner in seeking his relief before Civil Court or before any other forum having competent jurisdiction and no separate permission is required from this Court. Since this Court is passing final order in the writ petition, it will not be appropriate for this Court to grant an interim relief to the petitioner. However, it will be open for the petitioner to file an application for interim relief along with suit and the Court concerned shall pass a suitable order on it in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of.