High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1226 of 2022 Petitioner :- Janardan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Jeet Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents no. 1 to 4, learned counsel for respondent no. 5-Gram Sabha and learned counsel for Caveator- private respondent no.6. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'DDC') affirming the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'SOC'). Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition are that the land in question i.e. plot no. 376 basically belongs to the petitioner. At the time of preparation of Statement of Principles, Assistant Consolidation Officer has reserved the said plot for general Abadi. Feeling aggrieved with the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, respondent no. 6 has filed an appeal under Section 9-B(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'UPCH Act'). The SOC has allowed the said appeal vide order dated 31.10.2011 (Annexure- 4) and remitted the matter before the Consolidation Officer to reconsider the case in light of the objection raised by the appellant (contesting respondent no. 6). Having been aggrieved against the order of remand, Janardan (petitioner herein) has preferred revision. The DDC has dismissed the revision affirming the order passed by the SOC. Having been aggrieved against both the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in allowing the appeal, vide order dated 31.10.2022, the SOC has not followed the provisions as enunciated under Section 9-B(4) of the UPCH Act. No local inspection has been conducted by the appellate court and no notices have been issued to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee. It is further submitted that the order has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The DDC has committed same error by endorsing the order passed by the SOC. In support of his submission, counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of Arjun vs. DDC & Other (2018 (140) RD, 10). Relevant paragraphs no. 8 & 9 of the said cited case are being reproduced herein below :- "8. A perusal of the Section 9-A of the Act, 1953 shows that any objections filed by any person against the Statement of Principles prepared under Section 8-A of the Act, 1953 shall be filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, who after affording due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and after taking into consideration the opinion of the Consolidation Committee, submit his report to the C.O. who shall dispose of the objections in the manner prescribed and if no objection was filed, the C.O. shall, with a view to examining the correctness of the Statement of Principles, make local inspection of the unit, after giving due notice to the Consolidation Committee, and may thereafter make such modification or alterations in the Statement of Principles as he may consider necessary. 9. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions would also show that even the S.O.C., before deciding any Appeal filed under Section 9-B(3) of the Act, 1953 is enjoined to make a local inspection of the unit after giving due notice to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee. Thus, it is evident that before disposing of any objections against the Statement of Principles prepared under Section 8-A of the Act, 1953 the views of the Consolidation Committee of the Village have to be sought by the C.O. And the S.O.C. And before disposing of the objections or Appeal, the C.O. and the S.O.C., as the case may be, have to make a local inspection after giving due notice to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee.” Per contra, learned counsel for the Caveator contended that, in proposing the land in question as a general Abadi, the Assistant Consolidation Officer has himself not followed the provisions of law. Without giving any opportunity of hearing to the contesting respondents, who are the tenure holder of plot no. 376, and without conducting any local inspection on the spot, he has illegally proposed the plot no. 376 to be reserved for the General Abadi in the Statement of Principles. It is further contended that the SOC has rightly remanded the matter before the Consolidation Officer to revisit the matter after following the provisions of law as enunciated under Section 9-B (4) of the UPCH Act. It is next contended that there is no illegality, perversity or ambiguity in the impugned orders which may warrant indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it reveals that plot no. 376 belongs to the contesting respondent no. 6 and his brothers. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, while preparing the Statement of Principles, has proposed the aforesaid plot to be reserved for General Abadi purposes. There is nothing on record to demonstrate, and no particular pleading has been made by the petitioner in the writ petition, that opportunity of hearing was afforded to the contesting respondents or any local inspection was conducted by the authority concerned before reserving the aforesaid plot as General Abadi. To avoid further complications relating to plot in question, which has been proposed to be reserved as General Abadi in the Statement of Principles, the SOC has rightly remanded the matter before the Consolidation Officer to consider it de novo after fulfilling the formalities as required under the law. The case cited by counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions, in fact, is endorsing the provisions of law as enunciated under Section 9- B(4) of the UPCH Act which has to be followed at the time of deciding the matter relating to the Statement of Principles. The DDC has legally affirmed the order passed by the SOC.
Decision
In this conspectus as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the SOC and the DDC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to substantiate his submissions as advanced by him in assailing the orders under challenge. There is nothing on record to demonstrate as to how the petitioner is prejudiced, or is there any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to him, due to the impugned orders. Record reveals that the petitioner was neither a party up to the stage of SOC nor he is concerned in any manner with respect to the plot in question. He has preferred revision directly before the DDC showing his grievance against the order passed by the SOC. On his behest the matter is protracted since 2011 and, till date, appropriate decision could not be taken by the authority concerned in pursuance of the remand order dated 31.10.2011. There is no illegality, perversity or ambiguity in the impugned orders passed by the SOC and the DDC warranting indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, considering the old matter of 2011, the Consolidation Officer, before whom the matter has been remitted in pursuance of the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the SOC, is hereby directed to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. Digitally signed by VIBHA RATAN Date: 2022.09.19 11:37:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 14.9.2022 VR