Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MAHADEO PRASAD AND OTHERS versus CONSOLIDATION COMMISSIONER, U.P., LKO. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mahadeo Prasad And Others v. Consolidation Commissioner, U.P., Lko. And Others - WRIT - B No. 336 of 2001 [2005] RD-AH 6153 (22 November 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 40

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 336 of 2001

Mahadeo Prasad and others....................................Petitioners.

Versus

Consolidation Commissioner U.P. Lucknow and others.............................................................Respondents.

Hon. S.N.Srivastava, J.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3.8.2000 passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation Varanasi recalling the order dated 25.7.1997 and directing consolidation officer to make spot inspection relating to valuation of agricultural holding attended with further direction relating to valuation of plots. He also cancelled all chak carvation made by Ramesh Chand Bharti by relegating the village to the stage of allotment of chak on the application filed by Bechan Singh and Surendra Prasad Singh.

The dispute in the instant case relates to village Kesaripur Pargana Dehat Amanat Tahsil and District Varanasi. It would appear from the record that Ramesh Chand Bharti who was promoted as consolidation officer and posted in some other circle, still made allotment of chaks in the village. An application was moved by 160 tenure holders including Gaon Pradhan for cancelling the allotment made by Ramesh Chand Bharti aforestated and proportion of valuation of plots. Those applications were heard by then Deputy Director Consolidation who found number of irregularities and appointed enquiry officer to make thorough enquiry into the allegations. After hearing all the persons and considering the materials as well as relevant records relating to consolidation proceeding, the enquiry officer found that entire proceeding for allotment of chak was undertaken by Ramesh Chand Bharti even after his promotion and further that valuation fixed by him is illegal and not in accordance with law. The irregularities found by the Enquiry Officer are borne out from enquiry report. After considering the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, the Deputy Director Consolidation in exercise of power under section 48 (3), rescinded the proceedings relating to valuation of plots and allotment of chak which had been undertaken upto that date and relegated the matter at the stage of valuation. The consolidation officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation were directed to proceed accordingly. Besides, an order was passed to initiate disciplinary proceeding against Asstt. Consolidation officer concerned.

It appears that one Bechan Singh filed application for recalling that order on 8.12.1998 and by the impugned order, the order aforestated was recalled by which allotment of Chak proceeding done by Ramesh Chand Bharti was cancelled.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Counsel representing the Opp. parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that impugned order amounts to review of earlier order. It was further urged that all the mischief done by the Asstt. Consolidation Officer including valuation of the plots as well as allotment of chak were considered in great detail after enquiry and after hearing all the tenure holders of the village but subsequently, that order was illegally recalled. It was also urged that Bechan Singh and Surendra Singh and their group are the beneficiaries of illegal allotment and valuation made illegally of certain land, which should not have been valued at all. It was lastly submitted that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and consolidation proceeding be ordered to be started de-novo from the stage of valuation.

Learned counsel for the Opp. parties have no objection in so far as cancellation of allotment of chak proceeding made by Ramesh Chand Bharti Asstt. Consolidation officer who was promoted as consolidation officer and was posted in some other circle but even thereafter he continued to make allotment without going on spot within five days in the entire village, is concerned but at the same time, he claimed that valuation was rightly made after considering the objections.

It is obvious in the above perspective that there are certain serious allegations about the conduct of consolidation proceedings since the very stage of publication of records under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in the village in so far as valuation of plots is concerned. In the enquiry report, it was found that there is some illegality even at the stage of valuation. In the circumstances, number of tenure holders were not able to ascertain the actual valuation of plot. Allegations of manipulation in the valuation have also been levelled which are all writ large in the record.

Having considered the facts and circumstances on record and also regard being had to the submissions made across the bar, I am of the view that the entire proceedings upto the stage of preparation of statement under sections 8 and sections 8 A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and publication of record under section 9 of the U.P.C.H.Act require to be undertaken afresh. In the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that entire statement under sections 8 and 8 A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act be prepared afresh and records may be published afresh under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and thereafter parties be given opportunity to file objection under section 9 (2) and 9-A and 9-B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act relating to valuation and other matter. In case any objection relating to title if has already been filed, the same may also be reckoned with by the consolidation authorities in accordance with law. The effect of above directions would be that the entire allotment proceedings will automatically cease to exist and it would also result in setting aside the impugned order passed by Deputy Director Consolidation to that extent.

In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of in terms of above directions.

M.H.

22.11.2005.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.