Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1043 of 2021 Petitioner :- Shiv Pratap Singh Respondent :- The Consolidation Commissioner And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Asrey Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
List has been revised.
Heard Sri Ram Asrey Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos. 1 to 5.
The instant writ petition has been filed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 8.9.2020 passed by Consolidation Commissioner (respondent no. 1) in deciding the representation dated 4.3.2020 moved by the present petitioner in pursuance of order dated 18.2.2020 passed by this Court in Writ-B No. 470 of 2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to show several deficiencies in the impugned order dated 8.9.2020 (Annexure No. 14) passed by Consolidation Commissioner on his representation.
Perusal of the writ petition and the impugned order reveal that petitioner is trying to settle his personal score through representation for which he could resort to provisions of law as available under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity "U.P.C.H. Act).
In paragraph no. 3 of the writ petition, petitioner has shown his personal grievances in consolidation proceedings. Paragraph no. 3 of the writ petition is quoted herein-below:-
"That the grievance of the petitioner are that the arazis of the petitioner situated in village Fatehpur, Pargana Mohammadabad Gohana, District Mau are being arbitrarily, inter exchanged by the concern authorities during consolidation proceeding and due to tearing of settlement, have been entered in name of different persons in C.H. Form-2A without any basis thereof and in C.H. Form-23 Part-I, the forming of chaks are being made from new method in illegal way."
Apart from that, in paragraph nos. 25 to 30, petitioner has tried to show several deficiencies in the impugned order, which are in fact his personal grievances and the same cannot be treated or converted as a common problem of the public. Paragraph nos. 25 to 30 of the writ petition are quoted hereinbelow:-
"25.That the petitioner is advised to submit that Khata No.177, 518 and 259 of C.H. Form 45 of Ist Phase Consolidation have been left/removed wrongly without assigning any reason, with these Khatas its area have also been left without disclosing the fact by the consolidation authorities how many gatas are therein and as to where the area have been adjusted and as such the petitioner with his brothers have been deprived from their area which are their own ancestral properties.
26. That there are 32 gatas of C.H. Form 40 mentioned in the impugned order and now C.H. Form 40 has been deleted by the notification dated 15th November 1971 during the operation of Ist consolidation proceeding. According to contents of impugned order C.H. Form 41 and 45 are formed from C.H. Form 40 but the a grievance is that the said Arazis allotted to the petitioner and his brothers in C.H. Form-23 and C.H. Form-41 during this phase were entered in name of other difference persons during IInd phase of consolidation at the time of making C.H. Form -2A. The Consolidation Authorities could not show intentionally that in which Khata number the said gatas and its newly formed gatas of the petitioners and others are mentioned and they have fulfilled their duties to say that the same are mentioned in concerned Khata of other persons and the petitioner.
27. That on the basis of only one sale deed of 0.35 hectare of one Jai Prakash executed by Musafir father of the petitioner in his favour from Arazi no. 150 area 0.254 hectare entire tenure holder are being adjusted in IInd phase of consolidation while several persons having forged name over the arazis have sold the arazis time to time and the mutation of the purchasers have been made thereupon which was necessary to be explained the position to the petitioner through impugned order.
28. That Arazi no. 330 area .050 hectare without any order of the concerned consolidation authority has been deleted from C.H. Form-41 and 45 this is grievance. In Ist phase of consolidation of village Fatehpur the petitioner were given chak no. 235 in which two chaks were established. In first chak arazi no. 25710.10 etc. total 7 gatas and in 2nd chak arazi no. 328/0.051 etc. including Arazi No. 330/0.050 total 7 gata were given to the petitioner in which arazi no. 330 area 0.50 hectare valuation 6 paisa was left from the chak without any order passed by Consolidation Authority. According to the impugned order from which old arazis the C.H. Form 41 of Ist Consolidation has been prepared the arazi no. 330 is not including therein and the petitioner has not made comment on C.H. Form 41 and 45 of Ist Consolidation in his representation but it was not understood that where is Arazi no. 330 and its area and now this arazi has disappeared from revenue record impugned order has been passed wrongly illegally and arbitrarily without explaining the actual facts.
29. That in the impugned order the respondent no. 1 has accepted that the Arazi no. 165 is original holding of the petitioner and has not been included in all allotted three chaks to the petitioner but the total valuation of original holdings have been given to him in his chaks and he is entitled only for the valuation of his original holding but no the original holding. As such the revenue authorities adjusted my grievance by giving the valuation of original holdings of all three chaks to the petitioner in accordance with them. The impugned order has been passed to satisfy the petitioner on their own cost and formula framed by them.
30. That in respect of Arazi No. 132/0.045 hectare and Arazi No. 322/0.036 hectare it is said that if these arazis are groove and was excluded from consolidation proceeding according to CH Form 21 then the Arazis should be in name of petitioners and his brothers separately but no with others."
Previously petitioner has preferred a writ petition i.e. Writ-B No. 470 of 2020 (Shiv Pratap Singh Vs. Consolidation Commissioner and nine others) with a prayer for issuance of mandamus commanding the State Authorities including the Consolidation Commissioner for conducting an inquiry with respect to irregularities and forgeries in the revenue records during the consolidation proceeding.
The aforesaid petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.2.2020 with a direction to the Authorities concerned to examine the representation made by the petitioner. In order dated 18.2.2020, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has clearly observed that the petitioner has voiced his grievance purely on the administrative side. Order dated 18.2.202 passed by this Court is reproduced below:-
"1. Heard Sri Ram Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and Sri Anil Kumar Singh Baghel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to inquire the entire matter regarding the irregularities, fraudulent and forgery in the papers during consolidation proceeding conducted at IInd time in village Fatehpur, Pargana and Tehsil Mohammadabad Gohana District Mau specially the entries Arazi of the petitioner situated in village Fatehpur, within stipulated period as fixed by the Hon'ble Court.
B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to decide the representation dated 03.04.2019 (Annexure No.12) as well as 16.07.2019 (Annexure No.13) of the petitioner with reasons after making enquiry into the matter in stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. It appears that consolidation operation was in full swing whereafter according to the petitioner, the proceedings have been disturbed. In that regard, the petitioner appears to have made certain representations to the Commissioner, Consolidation. The alternative prayer made in the writ petition is for a direction to decide those representations.
4. The petitioner has voiced his grievance purely on the administrative side. The representations having been made, it may remain open to the said authority to examine the same and pass such orders as he may deem fit, in accordance with law, in a time bound manner.
5. Present writ petition is thus disposed of."
In pursuance of the order dated 18.2.2020, Consolidation Commissioner has decided the representation made by the petitioner which is under challenged on several grounds, which are more personal with respect to the allotment of plots.
Question raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition in challenging the correctness of the order dated 8.9.2020 passed by the Consolidation Commissioner cannot be said to effect public at large. Therefore, any personal grievance of the tenure holder, during the consolidation proceeding, qua his right and title or the allotment of chak can properly and effectively be ventilated by moving an appropriate applications under relevant provisions as enunciated under U.P.C.H. Act. Any tenure holder cannot be permitted to bypass the legal provisions and settle their personal score out of the Court by moving miscellaneous application and getting it decided at administrative side, with respect to his grievance in the consolidation proceeding. U.P.C.H. Act is a self contained Code, which provides several stages of proceeding in hierarchy to ventilate the grievances of the tenure holders, which could occur at different stages, by adjudicating it in judicial side.
In this conspectus as above, this Court finds no justification in entertaining the present writ petition against order passed by Consolidation Commissioner at the Administrative Side on the grievances of the petitioner, which could be adjudicated upon at the judicial side by moving an appropriate application before the court competent under the relevant provisions enshrined in U.P.C.H. Act. The present writ petition is devoid of merits and it is, accordingly, dismissed with no costs.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 A.P. Pandey/Manish Himwan