Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 823 of 2021 Petitioner :- Balram Singh Respondent :- District Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava III Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avinash Chandra Srivastava
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava III, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and perused the record.
In pursuance of order dated 12.07.2021, learned Standing Counsel has submitted copy of the instructions dated 24.07.2021 received from Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue)/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Maninpuri (in brevity 'D.D.C.') (respondent no.1), which is taken on the record.
Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner beseeching early disposal of Revision No.76/2010-11 (State vs. Balram Singh) pending in the Court of D.D.C. (respondent no.1).
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that notification under section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act'), with respect to the unit where plot in question situates, has been cancelled by a subsequent notification under section 6 of the U.P.C.H. Act promulgated on 10.12.2018, which is evident from the instructions as submitted by the learned Standing Counsel.
In this eventuality as shown in the instructions dated 24.07.2021 and submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is admitted that initial notification with respect to the unit has already been cancelled by subsequent notification under section 6 of the U.P.C.H. Act.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that adequate orders should be passed on the revision pending before the D.D.C., in the light of notification under section 6 of the U.P.C.H. Act.
It reveals from the record that, initially, vide order dated 15.04.2011 (Annexure-5), Revision No.76/2010-11 was allowed. Aforesaid order was assailed before this Hon'ble Court in Writ B No.30050 of 2011, which was allowed vide order dated 25.08.2011 (Annexure-6) quashing the earlier order dated 15.04.2011 with an observation that aforesaid order was ex- parte and, accordingly, matter was remitted before the D.D.C. to decide it afresh. After the order dated 25.08.2011 passed by this Court, revision filed on behalf of State is still pending before the respondent no.1 protracted and till date no fruitful step has been taken by the authority concerned to decide the aforesaid revision. During pendency of the aforesaid revision, notification dated 10.12.2018 has taken place under section 6 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act, cancelling earlier notification of unit under section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act.
Section 6 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act enunciates the consequential effect of notification under section 6 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act by which notification under section 4 of the said Act is cancelled. Final orders which were passed during the consolidation proceedings, before cancellation of the consolidation operation, shall be given effect to the revenue record. Meaning thereby area/unit shall cease to be under consolidation operation with effect from the date of the cancellation but this is subject to any final orders relating to correction of land record. In the matter in hand, nothing has been decided finally relating to the correction of record. Order passed by the S.O.C. was challenged in revision and during pendency of revision notification under section 6 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act took place, consequently, the orders passed by the consolidation authorities, which have not attained finality relating to the correction of record, shall be set at naught. Petitioner cannot resort to benefit under section 6 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, it would rather adversely affect the entire proceeding by setting it at naught and restoring the basic year entries, without any change, what was prevailing at the time of notification under section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act.
In this conspectus, in my opinion, the pending revision before the respondent no.1 will be automatically abated and original entry which was at the time of basic consolidation record should be restored.
Present writ petition is, accordingly, finally disposed of. However, petitioner is at liberty to resort to any other adequate remedy, as advised to him under the law, with respect to getting his right and title adjudicate upon from the competent Court.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Manish Himwan