Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3280 of 2018 Petitioner :- Habibullah Khan And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Adya Prasad Tewari,Sheo Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The prayer in the present petition is to issue a writ of mandamus to the Tehsildar Sadar District Gorakhpur to implement the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'the U.P. C.H. Act'). It is contended by the petitioners that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No.218 dated 30.9.1993 with respect to Araji No.145 area 0.198 (49 decimal) had attained finality but the same has not been implemented in the revenue records. Similarly, the prayer has been made with respect to other proceedings which had attained finality during the course of consolidation proceedings.
It is contended that with the notification under Section 6 (1) of the U.P. C.H. Act though the consolidation operations have been withdrawn/cancelled by the Consolidation Commissioner but the orders passed during the course of consolidation operations which had attained finality are to be given effect to as per sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the U.P. C.H. Act.
The submission is that the relevant date for denotification of the village is the date of issuance of the notification under Section 6(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act. After denotification, the records of the proceedings finalised prior to the date of Section 6 notification are handed over to the Revenue Authorities and they are under obligation to implement those orders as per the provisions contained in the U.P. C.H. Act read with the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.
In so far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the effect of denotification of the village under Section 6(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act and the orders, if any, passed during the course of consolidation operations having attained finality under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the U.P. C.H. Act, there cannot be a dispute.
The jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities who are incharge of the Revenue records to implement those orders also cannot be disputed. Only requirement is that the Revenue Authorities would be required to examine the records available before it and to find out as to whether the proceedings initiated during the course of consolidation operations had attained finality before issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act. The orders which allegedly had attained finality can only be implemented after verification of this fact.
Subject to the above observations, the present petition is being disposed of with the direction to the Competent Authority to examine the application moved by the petitioners for implementation of the orders passed during the course of consolidation operations keeping in view of the provisions of sub- section (2) read with sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the U.P. C.H. Act. Due notice and opportunity be given to the contesting parties and in any case, the directions given hereinabove will not be treated as a tool to pass ex-parte order against any of the affected parties. An expeditious decision in accordance with law shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 Jyotsana