High Court
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Petitioner :- Smt. Tilka Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Ayodhya Prasad Singh,Savitri Arya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta,Raghaw Ram Upadhyay Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri R.R. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 6. Under challenge are the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 14.06.2017 which has been affirmed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 10.02.2021 and in turn has been affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 13.08.2024. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire proceedings which culminated in the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 14.06.2017 was behind the back of the petitioners and no notice was issued and moreover there appears to be a case of ante-dating and manipulation of the proceedings and for the said reasons, the petitioner was deprived of bringing his version on record and at the behest of the private respondent no. 6, the orders were passed which has not been appropriately dealt with by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has prompted the petitioner to approach this Court. It is considering the averments made in the writ petition, this Court on 13.02.2025 had required the learned Standing Counsel to place the record before the Court. In pursuance of the said order, the original records relating to the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been placed before the Court. Upon perusal of the same, it appears that on 08.03.2013, an application is said to have been moved by the private respondent no. 6 purporting to be objections under Section 9-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 relating to plot nos. 2049, 2050 and 205 and 2052 The record also indicates that along with the said application, there was an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which was also sworn on 08.03.2013 with an affidavit. What is more significant to note that the entire records indicate that the said application along with Section 5 of the Limitation Act was moved but there is no order sheet which indicates that at any point of time any notice was issued to the petitioner. Not only this that there is no order issuing notice but there is no order sheet at all since 08.03.2023 when the said application said to have been moved, the next order sheet is only dated 14.06.2017 when a typed order was passed by the Consolidation Officer which is under challenge before this Court. From the perusal of the said order dated 14.06.2017, it would indicate that it reflects that notices were issued but apparently from perusal of the record, no such notice was issued nor any date post 08.03.2013 was fixed except the order came to be passed on 14.06.2017. Considering this, the averments made by the petitioner appears to have some force. What is more disturbing is the fact that once the original record was available with the Consolidation Officer, under what circumstances he incorporated in his order dated 14.06.2017 that notices were issued and since none had put in appearance, the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also granted. In absence of any notice or any order sheet whatsoever, such an order could not have been passed. This was an error apparent on the face of the record which could not have gone unnoticed both by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Apparently, by upholding such an illegal order, it only indicates that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation have also not applied their judicial mind viz. a viz. the record which was available with them. At this stage, Sri R.R. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 6 who also after perusing the record which had been provided by the court could not dispute the fact that neither any dates were fixed and there is nothing on record to indicate that from 08.03.2013 till 14.06.2017 how the proceedings were taken forward. Since Sri Upadhyay is appearing for the private respondent no. 6 who had moved the said objections but could not give any reply worth any satisfaction to explain the obvious non-issuance of notice and then Sri Uapdhay, learned counsel candidly submitted that he cannot justify the order. Considering the facts and consensus arrived at between the parties that the orders may be set aside as they cannot be justified, however, a request has been made that the matter may be remanded for decision afresh before the Consolidation Officer and after affording full opportunity to the parties, the matter may be decided within some time span. This Court finds that the impugned orders cannot be justified, hence, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the orders impugned dated 14.06.2017, 10.02.2021 and 13.08.2024 are hereby set aside and quashed. The proceedings shall stand restored on the board of the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner shall have right to file his objections, all such pleas which are open to him in law shall be considered and the Consolidation Officer shall make an endevour to decide the same after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties as well as permitting them to lead their respective evidence and endevour be made to decide the proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferrably within a period of 6 months from the date, the parties will appear before the Consolidation Officer which is being fixed by this Court on 17th March, 2025. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed. The original records have been handed over to the learned Standing Counsel. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Asheesh/-
Petitioner :- Smt. Tilka Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Ayodhya Prasad Singh,Savitri Arya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta,Raghaw Ram Upadhyay Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri R.R. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 6. Under challenge are the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 14.06.2017 which has been affirmed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 10.02.2021 and in turn has been affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 13.08.2024. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire proceedings which culminated in the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 14.06.2017 was behind the back of the petitioners and no notice was issued and moreover there appears to be a case of ante-dating and manipulation of the proceedings and for the said reasons, the petitioner was deprived of bringing his version on record and at the behest of the private respondent no. 6, the orders were passed which has not been appropriately dealt with by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has prompted the petitioner to approach this Court. It is considering the averments made in the writ petition, this Court on 13.02.2025 had required the learned Standing Counsel to place the record before the Court. In pursuance of the said order, the original records relating to the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been placed before the Court. Upon perusal of the same, it appears that on 08.03.2013, an application is said to have been moved by the private respondent no. 6 purporting to be objections under Section 9-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 relating to plot nos. 2049, 2050 and 205 and 2052 The record also indicates that along with the said application, there was an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which was also sworn on 08.03.2013 with an affidavit. What is more significant to note that the entire records indicate that the said application along with Section 5 of the Limitation Act was moved but there is no order sheet which indicates that at any point of time any notice was issued to the petitioner. Not only this that there is no order issuing notice but there is no order sheet at all since 08.03.2023 when the said application said to have been moved, the next order sheet is only dated 14.06.2017 when a typed order was passed by the Consolidation Officer which is under challenge before this Court. From the perusal of the said order dated 14.06.2017, it would indicate that it reflects that notices were issued but apparently from perusal of the record, no such notice was issued nor any date post 08.03.2013 was fixed except the order came to be passed on 14.06.2017. Considering this, the averments made by the petitioner appears to have some force. What is more disturbing is the fact that once the original record was available with the Consolidation Officer, under what circumstances he incorporated in his order dated 14.06.2017 that notices were issued and since none had put in appearance, the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also granted. In absence of any notice or any order sheet whatsoever, such an order could not have been passed. This was an error apparent on the face of the record which could not have gone unnoticed both by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Apparently, by upholding such an illegal order, it only indicates that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation have also not applied their judicial mind viz. a viz. the record which was available with them. At this stage, Sri R.R. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 6 who also after perusing the record which had been provided by the court could not dispute the fact that neither any dates were fixed and there is nothing on record to indicate that from 08.03.2013 till 14.06.2017 how the proceedings were taken forward. Since Sri Upadhyay is appearing for the private respondent no. 6 who had moved the said objections but could not give any reply worth any satisfaction to explain the obvious non-issuance of notice and then Sri Uapdhay, learned counsel candidly submitted that he cannot justify the order. Considering the facts and consensus arrived at between the parties that the orders may be set aside as they cannot be justified, however, a request has been made that the matter may be remanded for decision afresh before the Consolidation Officer and after affording full opportunity to the parties, the matter may be decided within some time span. This Court finds that the impugned orders cannot be justified, hence, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the orders impugned dated 14.06.2017, 10.02.2021 and 13.08.2024 are hereby set aside and quashed. The proceedings shall stand restored on the board of the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner shall have right to file his objections, all such pleas which are open to him in law shall be considered and the Consolidation Officer shall make an endevour to decide the same after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties as well as permitting them to lead their respective evidence and endevour be made to decide the proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferrably within a period of 6 months from the date, the parties will appear before the Consolidation Officer which is being fixed by this Court on 17th March, 2025. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed. The original records have been handed over to the learned Standing Counsel. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Asheesh/-