Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1090 of 2021 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard Shri Abhishek Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
Present writ petition has been filed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India beseeching the correction of record in pursuance of order dated 11.06.1996 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation(in brevity "S.O.C.") in Appeal Nos. 503 and 494 under Section 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity "U.P.C.H. Act").
It appears that with respect to the property in question, parties had litigated the matter up to the stage of S.O.C. and lis was culminated vide order dated 11.06.1996 passed by S.O.C. in Appeal Nos. 503, 594 under Section 11(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. At subsequent stage, village was notified under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act by which earlier notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act was cancelled.
Submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 6(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, authorities are under legal obligation to implement the order passed by the Consolidation Courts during the consolidation proceeding and correct the record, accordingly, at the time of cessation of consolidation operation due to cancellation of notification. Section 6(2) of U.P.C.H. Act succincts the effect of cancellation of notification u/s 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. The notified area u/s 4 of U.P.C.H. Act will be ceased to be under consolidation operation with effect from the date of the cancellation, subject to the orders passed by the Consolidation Courts during the consolidation proceeding. It is claimed that, in the present matter, order passed by the S.O.C. became final between the parties and the same has never been challenged before any competent Court. Therefore, said order should be implemented in the revenue record after notification under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act.
Learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that the grievances raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition can properly be ventilated by the authorities concerned, in case, the petitioner moves an application before them for implementation of the order dated 11.06.1996 and same may be ordered to be decided within stipulated period.
In this conspectus as above, no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation on the merits of the case as mentioned in the present writ petition, with a direction that petitioner is at liberty to move fresh representation within a period of three weeks from today, qua his grievances as mentioned in the present writ petition along with copy of this order before Collector/District Magistrate (respondent No.2), who, either himself or through another competent authority, shall scrutinize the matter and initiate the proceeding to implement the order dated 11.06.1996 expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date in receipt of the aforesaid representation.
It is expected that it should be decided by reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned without granting unnecessary adjournments.
The petitioner shall file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad, supported by an affidavit, which shall be verified by the concerned authority from the website of the High Court, Allahabad.
With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Sachin