Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5984 of 2002 Petitioner :- Shankar Lal And Others Respondent :- Collector/D.D.C., And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sankatha Rai,Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai,Manish Chandra Tiwari,Ramesh Chandra Singh,V.K.Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brijesh Sahai
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Shri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
2. The dispute in the present writ petition is regarding Plot No. 861 (area 2.276 hectare) situated in Village Lodhi, Pargana Barahar, Tehsil Robertsganj, District-Sonbhadra and the dispute arises out of consolidation proceedings held in the Village. In the Khatauni of the basic year, name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was recorded as Class IV holder of the disputed plot. Subsequently, during the consolidation proceedings held in the village objections under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') was filed by the petitioners before the Consolidation Officer, Robertsganj, District-Sonbhadra stating that the petitioners have become Bhumidhar of the disputed plot, and therefore, the Revenue Records may be accordingly corrected. On the aforesaid objections filed by the petitioners Case No. 1740/1991-92 was registered before the Consolidation Officer, Robertsganj, District- Sonbhadra. The Consolidation Officer, relying on the statement of the Pradhan of the Village, vide his order dated 31.10.1995 directed that Revenue Records be corrected and name of the petitioners be recorded as Bhumidhar with transferable rights over the disputed plot, as name of the father of the petitioners was erroneously recorded as Class IV holder of the disputed plot. Against the order dated 31.10.1995 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the State Government filed a Revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before respondent No. 1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sonbhadra (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C'), which was registered as Revision No. 3/2000. The D.D.C. vide his order dated 2.11.2001 allowed the Revision and set aside the order dated 31.10.1995 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The order dated 2.11.2001 passed by the D.D.C. has been challenged in the present writ petition.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that Revision No. 3/2000 was not maintainable under the Act 1953, as the State Government had a right to Appeal against the order dated 31.10.1995. It was further argued by the counsel for the petitioners that even if the Revision was maintainable and there was some error in the order of the Consolidation Officer, the Revisional Court should have remanded back the matter to the Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision on the objections filed by the petitioners after giving an opportunity of hearing to the State Government. It was contended that the Revisional Court had erred in law in allowing the Revision without remanding back the matter to the Consolidation Officer. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the contention of the State Government before respondent No. 1 was that the order dated 31.10.1995 was passed by the Consolidation Officer without giving any opportunity of hearing to the State Government, therefore, it was proper for the Revisional Court to remand back the matter to the Consolidation Officer and the Revisional Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in considering the case of the petitioners on merits.
4. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
5. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding maintainability of the Revision. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Smt.
Taluka Devi Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh & Another, 1981 RD (12), the Revision was maintainable and respondent No. 1 committed no jurisdictional error in entertaining the Revision even though no Appeal under Section 11 of the Act, 1953 was filed by the State Government against the order dated 31.10.1995 passed by the Consolidation Officer. So far as the second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the petitioners never had any triable case before the Consolidation Officer. In its judgement and order dated 2.11.2001 the Revisional Court has recorded a finding that the disputed plot was recorded as Class 6(4) in the Revenue Records relating to 1369 Fasli and the name of the father of the petitioners was recorded as Class IV holder of the disputed plot in the Revenue Records relating to 1377 to 1379 Fasli on the basis of some order dated 3.4.1985 passed by the concerned Tehsildar. The said order was passed by the Tehsildar relying on the statement of the villagers. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that father of the petitioner was a hereditary tenant as would be evident from the fact that he was recorded as Class IV holder of the disputed plot and therefore the disputed plot shall be deemed to have been settled with him as Sirdar and consequently, by operation of law, the petitioners became Bhumidhar with transferable rights of the disputed plot. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioners has referred to para No. 124-A of U.P. Land Records Manual, which specify the arrangement of holdings in the Revenue Records. In the judgement dated 2.11.2001, it is recorded by respondent No. 1 that father of the petitioners was recorded as Class IV holder of the disputed plot in the Revenue Records on the basis of some order dated 3.4.1985 passed by the concerned Tehsildar. There is no averment in the writ petition stating that the aforesaid recital in the order of respondent No. 1 is incorrect. Thus, the nature of possession of the predecessor-in-interest of
petitioners over the disputed plot shall not be decided by the arrangements of lands as specified in Chapter VIII, Para 124-A of the U.P. Land Records Manual but by the arrangements of holdings as specified in Chapter A-VIII, Para No. A-124 of the U.P. Land Records Manual, in which a Class IV holder is specified as an occupier of a land without title when no one was already recorded in Column IV of the Khasra. As evident from order dated 2.11.2001 passed by respondent No. 1 the case of the petitioners was also not covered under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950').
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any statutory provision where an occupier without title of land and recorded as such in the Revenue Records relating to 1377 to 1379 Fasli is entitled to be subsequently recorded as Bhumidhar with transferable rights specially where the plot was categorized as Class 6(4) in the Revenue Records of 1369 Fasli.
7. In view of the aforesaid, petitioners never had any case before the Consolidation Officer and the order dated 30.10.1995 passed by the Consolidation Officer was illegal. The petitioners had no triable case and it would have served no purpose to remand back the matter to the Consolidation Officer. Thus, the argument of counsel for the petitioners that Revisional Court should have remanded back the matter to the Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision is also rejected.
7. The writ petition lacks merits, and is, accordingly
dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Anurag/-