Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents including the counsel for the Gaon Sabha as well as the Standing Counsel in all the connected writ petitions.
The matters in the connected writ petitions are identical and relate to the validity of allotments allegedly made in favour of the petitioners. The dates of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and other subordinate consolidation authorities are different but as the issue involved in all the writ petitions is the same, therefore, all the petitions are being decided by a common order.
In the basic year records, the petitioners were shown as allottees of certain plots. It has been stated in the writ petitions that the allotments were made in favour of the petitioners between 1965 to 1974 but on some complaint, proceedings were instituted under Section 198(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') which after remand by the Board of Revenue remained pending before the Additional Collector. In the meantime, a notification under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') was issued and the village came under consolidation operations. On an order passed by the Collector, the Consolidation Officer registered cases against the petitioners under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953. It also appears from a perusal of the records annexed with the writ petitions that in cases registered under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953, the Consolidation Officer summoned the reports of the revenue officers regarding the validity of allotments made in favour of the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and relying on the reports submitted by the revenue officers held that no allotments were ever made in favour of the petitioners and the entries in the basic year records showing the petitioners to be allottees were forged. It is evident from the different orders passed by the Consolidation Officer in the different cases registered before him that no notices were issued to the petitioners in the cases registered under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953. The petitioners filed appeals before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In some cases, the appeals were allowed in toto and the order of the Consolidation Officer was set-aside, in some cases the appeals were dismissed and in some cases the appeals were allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after giving the appellants an opportunity of hearing. The orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation are not relevant for a decision of the writ petitions and, therefore, the same is not being referred in detail. The orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation whereby the appeals filed by the alleged allottees were allowed were challenged by the State Government and the Gaon Sabha before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 and the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation were challenged by the alleged allottees in cases in which the appeals were dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation through his different orders in the revisions filed before him under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 held that as the entries in favour of the petitioners were forged, therefore, no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioners and further, the validity of the allotments could not be decided by the Consolidation Officer but had to be decided by the revenue authorities and on the aforesaid reasoning, upheld the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer. The orders passed by the consolidation authorities deciding against the petitioners have been challenged in the writ petitions.
In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors. AIR (2000) SC 878, the consolidation authorities have the power to decide the validity of any allotment made in favour of any villager. Further, it is evident that proceedings were registered before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 and, therefore, had to be decided in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rule 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1954') which requires that notices shall be issued to the parties and issues shall be framed on the points in dispute and further the Consolidation Officer shall decide the objections after permitting the parties to produce oral and documentary evidence in support of their cases. Evidently, the opinion of the consolidation authorities that no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioners is contrary to law and the opinion of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the consolidation authorities do not have the power to decide the validity of the patta is also contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court referred above.
A reading of the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer also shows that while deciding against the petitioners, the Consolidation Officer has mechanically relied upon the report submitted by the concerned revenue officer. In proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953, the Consolidation Officer has to decide on the basis of evidence filed before him and independently of any observations made by the revenue officer.
Evidently, the orders passed by the consolidation authorities are contrary to law and liable to be set-aside and the matters are liable to be remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.
For the aforesaid reasons, the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer are, hereby, set-aside. The matters are remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and after following the procedure prescribed in Rule 26 of the Rules, 1954 within a period of four months form the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The consequential appeals and revisions shall also be decided by the appellate and revisional courts within three months from the date of filing the appeal or revision. In order to comply with the time limit fixed by this Court in deciding the cases, the consolidation authorities may, if necessary, hold a day-to-day hearing in the cases registered before them.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are allowed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Satyam