High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Vinod & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - B No. 58309 of 2006  RD-AH 19014 (9 November 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58309 of 2006
Vinod & Others
State of U.P. & Others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri N.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. R. Sirohi and Sri S. K. Pundir appearing for contesting respondent no. 4.
The facts, giving rise to the present dispute, are as under;
Plots no. 221, 222, 209 and 410, which were original holdings of respondent no. 4 were reserved as Abadi site for Harijan and landless persons and for pits of manure under the statement of principles prepared under Section 8 A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short ''the Act'). After publication of notification under Section 9 of the Act two belated objections were filed by respondent no. 4. One objection was filed for setting aside the valuation of plots in dispute and keep them out of consolidation proceedings. Another objection was filed challenging the reservation of Plots in dispute for Abadi site and manure pits. The Consolidation Officer consolidated both the objections and by common order dated 28.2.2003 dismissed the same. The said order was challenged in appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 4.8.2003 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, respondent no. 4 went up in revision which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 9.10.2006. Aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court.
Objections were filed by respondent no. 4 on the ground that plots which were reserved for Harijan Abadi and manure pits etc. belonged to the School and were required for the extension/up-gradation scheme of the institution which was duly approved by the Government and without the land, scheme for extension and up gradation of the School would be adversely affected. Before the Consolidation Officer Pradhan of the Gram Sabha as well as Chairman and one member of the Consolidation Committee filed their affidavits giving consent for reserving plot no. 152 for manure pits, plot no. 329/2 for Harijan Abadi and plot no. 410 Abadi land for landless labourers offered by respondent no.4 in exchange. The Consolidation Officer though found that the demand made by the contesting respondent no. 4 was justified but he refused to allow the objection, mainly, on the ground that plots for which consent has been given by Pradhan and consolidation committee have already been allotted to the chak holder 669 and 669-A and delivery of possession has also taken place as such any interference was not warranted. The Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed the appeal on the same ground.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation finding that plots which were given in exchange for manure pits, Harijan Abadi etc. were as a matter of fact allotted in the chak of contesting respondent no. 4, allowed the revision.
From a perusal of the amended chart filed along with judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it becomes clear that the chak no. 669 and 669-A are that of contesting respondent no. 4 and plots no. 152, 329/2 and 410 etc. which have been reserved for Abadi and manure pits in place of plots in dispute, by the Deputy Director of Consolidation have been taken out from the chak of respondent no. 4.
The first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after the stage of section 9 is over, no objection can be raised with regard to valuation and Statement of Principles in view of bar created by Section 11-A of the Act.
In reply, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 that bar of Section 11-A is for raising objection with regard to valuation etc. at the subsequent stage of consolidation proceedings and it does not apply in case of belated objections accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Section 11-A of the Act reads as under :
"11-A. Bar of objections. No question in respect of -
(i) claims to land;
(ii) partition of joint holdings; and
(iii) valuation of plots, trees, wells and other improvements, where the question is sought to be raised by a tenure-holder of the plot or the owner of the tree, well or other improvements recorded in the annual register under Section 10.
relating to the consolidation area, (which has been raised under Section 9 or which might or ought to have been raised under that section) but has not been so raised, shall be raised, or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings."
A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that bar has been created with regard to objection which has been raised or ought to have been raised at the stage of Section 9 at any subsequent stage of consolidation proceedings i.e. any objection which can be raised or ought to have been raised at the stage of Section 9 of the Act cannot be raised or heard once the stage of Section 9 is over. However, it does not debar filing of belated objection for good reasons. In the present case, objections were filed under Section 9 of the Act and being time barred were accompanied by prayer for condonation of delay and it cannot be said that Section 11-A would stand in the way of the said objections.
In view of the aforesaid, first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no force and is devoid of merits.
It has next been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the plots given in exchange by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for Abadi and manure pits etc. have been allotted in the chak of other tenure holders who were not impleaded as party and being in their possession they are, as a matter of fact, not available for being reserved for pits and Abadi. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is totally misconceived. A perusal of the amended chart annexed with the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation clearly goes to show that plots which have been given in exchange by the Deputy Director of Consolidation were allotted in the chak 669 and 669-A which belongs to respondent no. 4 and the said plots have been taken out from his chak and thus, it cannot be said that the same are not available as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
It has been next contended on behalf of the petitioners that in the absence of any resolution of the consolidation committee, the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have exchanged the plots. Pradhan of the Gram Sabha, Chairman and one member of the consolidation committee filed their affidavits giving consent for exchange and thus, it cannot be said that exchange has been made without any consent of the consolidation committee and thus argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners in this regard is also devoid of any force.
From the pleadings and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears that main grievance of the petitioners is with regard to shifting of the plots reserved for Harijan Abadi in as much as it has been vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that plots which have now been reserved for Harijan Abadi is situate far away from the village. The petitioners do have a right for reservation of land for the purpose of Harijan Abadi but they cannot have a vested right for reservation of Harijan Abadi over a particular plot. In so far as suitability of the plots now reserved for Abadi purpose is concerned, initially vide resolution dated 4.11.1988 consolidation authorities had proposed to reserve plots no. 221/2, 222 and 326 (total three plots) for Harijan Abadi. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in place of plots no. 221 and 222 has reserved Harijan Abadi on plots no. 330, 331, 332, 334 and 336. From a perusal of village map filed as Annexure ''16' to the writ petition, it becomes clear that plots now ear-marked for Harijan Abadi are situate adjacent to plot no. 363 and thus, it cannot be said that these plots are not suitable.
As a matter of fact, by the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation equities between the parties have been suitably adjusted in as much the some land has been ear-marked for Harijan Abadi etc. and the land required for extension programme of the school has also been made available to it and for this reason also, the impugned order does not call for any interference.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
November 9th, 2006.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.