Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1741 of 2019 Petitioner :- Khem Chand And 5 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Arun Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, representing respondent No. 4.
The present writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 7.9.2013 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Amroha, i.e., respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.'), 11.1.2016 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Amroha, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') and 30.8.2017 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Amroha, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.').
The dispute relates to Plot No. 59 included in Khata No. 49. The petitioners were recorded as Bhumidhar of the disputed plot. An objection filed by the revenue authorities under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') on the ground that the petitioners were wrongly recorded as Bhumidhar of the said plot as the plot was a pasture land and recorded as such in the revenue records and, therefore, no Bhumidhari rights could accrue in favour of the petitioners in view of Section 132 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950'). The petitioners opposed the said objection filed by the revenue authorities on the ground that the land was recorded in their names as a consequence of a sale-deed executed by a person who was previously recorded as Bhumidhar of the disputed plot.
The objection filed by the revenue authorities was accepted by the consolidation authorities on the ground that no Bhumidhari rights could accrue in favour of any person under Section 132 of the Act, 1950.
There is no illegality in the orders dated 7.9.2013, 11.1.2016 and 30.8.2017 passed by the C.O., S.O.C. and the D.D.C. The sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioners does not confer any title on the petitioners as the vendor of the petitioners herself had no rights in the disputed plots.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition lacks merit, and is, hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019/Anurag/-