Virendra Nath v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Reserved on 16.10.2023 Delivered on 18.10.2023 Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 772 of 2023 Petitioner :- Virendra Nath Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Parties to the dispute are vendor and vendee. The sale deed executed by petitioner in favour of contesting-respondents is not in dispute. Learned counsel for parties have drawn attention of Court on the boundaries mentioned in sale deed around the land in dispute which are as follows: "तफसील आराजी ቝኌ

त ्ቇाम सादीपुर, पर० हवेली, तह० व जिजला जौनपुर आ०नं० 565/1-36 (पांच सौ पैंसठ नंबर एक एकड़ छ्ቈीस डि%०) में केवल 32 ½ डि%० (ब्ቈीस सही एक बटा दो डि%०) बय किकया जिजसकी जमीन किक म 2 है त ा आराजी आवास किवकास ्ቌे्ቔ के बाहर है सड़क व आबादी से दूर है। ्ቅेता व किव्ቅेता अनुसूडिचत जाडित व अनुसूडिचत जनजाडित के नहीं है त ा चौह्ቌी किनम्नलिललि7त है। पूरब 7ेत शीतला वगैरा पडि:म 7ेत किव्ቅेता, उ्ቈर 7ेत रामजीत यादव, दडि्ቌण 7ेत जमादार वगै०। वयसुदा आराजी की बाजारी कीमत मु० 35500/- है।" ((Emphasis supplied)

¶2Petitioner, the vendor, has filed objection under Section 21(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1953") and chaks were allotted on the basis of possession of respective parties found on spot. Relevant part of the order dated 05.02.2015 passed by Consolidation Officer is mentioned hereinafter: "आज‌पቚ सतुत।‌पतቔ ावली‌का‌अवलोकन‌वि कया‌गया।‌वि वरन्े दቖ ‌नाथ‌पुतቔ रामदास‌चकदार‌572 ने‌मांग‌वि कया‌है‌वि क‌चकदार‌मजई‌पुतቔ ‌जगरू प‌दቛ ारा आ०सं० ‌565/-532  में‌से ‌32 ?  धि ड०‌का‌बनै ामा‌दधि कቌ ण‌तरफ लि लखाकर‌कावि बज‌था‌परतं ु‌स०च०अ०‌दቛ ारा‌वि बना‌मौका‌देखे‌चकदार‌572 की‌सादीक‌जमीन‌पर‌चकदार‌मजई‌की‌चक‌पቚ वि दषቖ ‌कर‌दी‌गयी।‌अतः चकदार‌572/0.45 हे०‌की‌चक‌जो‌गा०‌स०ं ‌564, 563, 565, पर पቚ वि दषቖ ‌है, वि नरसत‌करके ‌चकदार‌572 की‌चक‌गाटा‌स०ं ‌565 वि म/-452 पर‌पቚ वि दषቖ ‌वि कया‌जाय‌तथा‌मजई‌की‌चक‌दधि कቌ ण‌पቚ वि दषቖ ‌वि कया‌जाय।‌ अभि भलेख‌व‌भूधि चतቔ ‌का‌अवलोकन‌वि कया‌गया।‌अनुसार‌मौका बनै ामेदार‌मजई‌चकदार‌681 की‌चक‌दधि कቌ ण‌तरफ‌पቚ वि दषቖ ‌वि कया‌जाना उधि चत‌है।" (Emphasis supplied)

¶3A belated appeal under Section 21(2) of Act, 1953 was filed by   contesting-respondents   against   aforesaid   order   which   was allowed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated

27.01.2016 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: "अभि भलेख‌के ‌अवलोकन‌से‌सपषቖ ‌है‌वि क‌अपीलकतारगण‌चकदार सं०‌681 मजई‌पुतቔ ‌जगरू प‌के ‌वारि रस‌ह।ै ‌चकबंदी‌अधि धकारी‌सतर‌से‌कु ल तीन‌चक‌पቚ वि दषቖ ‌ह।ै ‌गाटा‌सं०‌324/2 पर‌रकबा- 068 हे०‌मूल् यांकन‌6-80 का‌और‌वि दቛ तीय‌चक‌मूल‌गाटा‌सं०‌565/1 पर‌रकबा‌- 111 हे० मूल् यांकन ‌20-25  का‌पቚ वि दषቖ ‌ह।ै ‌भूधि चतቔ ‌के ‌अवलोकन‌से‌सपषቖ ‌है‌वि क सहायक‌चकबंदी‌अधि धकारी‌जो‌चक‌वि दया‌गया‌था‌वह‌अपीलकतार‌की चकबंदी‌पृथक‌भूवि म‌जो‌सड़ क‌से‌संलगሿ ‌है, को‌दृ वि षቖ गत‌रखते‌हुए‌पቚ वि दषቖ वि कया‌गया‌था‌वि कन् तु‌चकबंदी‌अधि धकारी‌ने‌चक‌की‌वि दशा‌परि रवरኌ तत‌करके भूल‌वि कया‌है, इससे‌अपीलकतार‌अपनी‌सड़ क‌पर‌सኌ सथत‌चक‌पृथक‌भूवि म से‌हट‌गया‌ह‌ै जो‌उधि चत‌नहीं ‌ह।ै ‌अपीलकतार‌की‌मांग‌स०च०अ०‌सतर‌का चक‌वि दये‌जाने‌की‌उधि चत‌ह।ै ‌अपील‌सवीकार‌वि कये‌जाने‌योग् य‌ह।ै " (Emphasis supplied)

¶4In aforesaid circumstances petitioner filed revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was dismissed by means of impugned order dated 24.01.2023 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: "मैनें‌पतቔ ावली‌का‌अवलोकन‌वि कया‌एवं‌वि नगरानी‌में‌पकቌ ों ‌को‌सुना गया‌एवं‌अवर‌न् यायालय‌के ‌आदेश‌का‌अवलोकन‌वि कया‌गया‌एवं‌पቚ धि तवादी की‌आपलि तቈ ‌भी‌संलगሿ ‌है‌तथा‌मा०‌उचሴ ‌न् यायालय‌की‌रि रट‌याधि चका‌बी संख् या-792/2022 राज‌बहादर‌बनाम‌सटेट‌ऑफ‌य०पी०‌व‌3 अन् य‌मेंु ू पारि रत‌आदेश‌वि दनांक‌05.05.2022 का‌भी‌अवलोकन‌वि कया, जि जसके अनुसार‌06 माह‌में‌वि नसतारण‌का‌आदेश‌ह।ै ‌मैनें‌बन् दोबसत‌अधि धकारी चकबन् दी‌के ‌आदेश‌वि दनांक ‌27.01.16  का‌अवलोकन‌वि कया‌तथा अभि भलेख‌व‌भूधि चतቔ ‌का‌राजसव‌अभि भलेखागार‌से‌अभि भलेखों ‌का‌अवलोकन वि कया।‌तथ् यगत‌परीकቌ ण‌से‌सपषቖ ‌है‌वि क‌वि नगरानीकतार‌चकदार‌सख्ं या‌572 के ‌तीन‌चक‌तीनों ‌ही‌गाटा‌संख् या ‌743/1, 564  व ‌565/1  तथा 1060/1 मूल‌गाटें‌को‌लेकर‌पቚ वि दषቖ ‌है‌एवं‌मूल‌जोत‌का‌रकबा‌.859 एयर के ‌सापेकቌ ‌पቚ सतावि वत‌चक‌का‌रकबा‌.828 एयर‌ह।ै ‌जहां‌तक‌वि नगरानीकतार का‌यह‌कथन‌है‌वि क‌उनका‌चक‌गलत‌वि दया‌गया‌है‌यह‌अनुधि चत‌है‌एवं सहायक‌चकबन् दी‌अधि धकारी‌सतर‌पर‌पकቌ ों ‌के ‌बीच‌चक‌व‌अचक‌भूवि म‌से सम् बसኌ न् धत‌सथलीय‌कब् जे‌के ‌आधार‌पर‌गाटा‌संख् या‌565 का‌बंटवारा हआ‌ह।ै ‌सहायक‌चकबन् दी‌अधि धकारी‌के ‌आदेश‌दቛ ारा‌गाटा‌संख् याु 565/1, 565/2  व ‌565/3  का‌बंटवारा‌वि कया‌गया‌है‌एवं‌बन् दोबसत अधि धकारी‌चकबन् दी‌दቛ ारा‌अपने‌वि नणरय‌में‌सथलीय‌वि नरीकቌ ण‌करते‌हए‌यहु उजि ललि खत‌वि कया‌गया‌है‌वि क‌पቚ धि तवादी‌लाल‌बहादर‌आवि द‌का‌चक‌अवरु न् यायालय‌दቛ ारा‌सड़ क‌सኌ सथत‌भूवि म‌से‌हटा‌वि दया‌गया‌है‌जि जसे‌अनुधि चत मानते हुए अपील वीकार कर चकदार संख्या 681 व 572 में संशोIन किकया गया है। मेरी दृकि्ቖ से अभिFले7ों के परी्ቌण एवं अवर न्यायालयों के आदेश के परी्ቌणोपरान्त किनगरानीकताG की किनगरानी किनर त किकये जाने योग्य है एवं

लीय किनरी्ቌण की ्ቇाम के Iारा 52 के प:ात आवश्यकता नहीं है।" (Emphasis supplied)

¶5Sri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that boundaries of land in dispute specifically indicate that it was not abut to any road and as such the Appellate Authority has erred in allotting a chak to contesting-respondents abut to road side. No finding was returned that how and under what circumstances the order passed by Consolidation Officer, on the basis of spot inspection, was incorrect or perverse. Learned counsel has also submitted that Revisional Authority ought to have inspected the spot in order to verify the contention raised on behalf of petitioner that Appellate Authority has not passed order on the basis of spot inspection. Therefore, the Revisional Authority has also erred by returning a finding that after proclamation of notification under Section 52 of Act, 1953 there was no requirement to conduct spot inspection. In support of above submission learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in Lal Sahab vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2020(1) JCLR 103 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: "4. It is admitted that the revisions were filed by the petitioner on 29.1.1997 and, thus, before the notification issued under Section 52 of the Act, 1953 ceasing the consolidation operations in the village was issued. In view of the aforesaid and in view of Section 52(2) of the Act, 1953 and in view of the law laid down by this Court in Ram Bahadur & Anr. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth nagar and Ors. 2006 (101) RD 11, the notification under Section 52 of the Act, 1953 did not affect the pending revisions and the said revisions had to be decided on merits and the Deputy Director of Consolidation was duty bound to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law….."

¶6Per contra, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for contesting-respondents, has submitted that according to boundaries mentioned in sale deed the land of petitioner was at the back side, therefore, he could not get benefit of allotment of chak abut to road side. Learned counsel further submitted that Appellate Authority has rightly interfered with the order passed by Consolidation Officer that land proposed by Consolidation Officer to contesting-respondents is abut to road which was already chak out and Consolidation Officer has erred in disturbing the sites of chak allotted to both parties. In support of submission learned counsel has referred various forms which were prepared during consolidation proceedings.

¶7Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

¶8I have carefully perused the boundaries of land in dispute which indicate that land in dispute is away from road or any chak marg. Therefore, this Court is not convinced on the basis of rival submission and document on record that details of land mentioned in Proforma Form 2-A with regard to area of .007 clearly denotes that land in dispute was abut to road or it was only a passage to reach at road.

¶9It is also not in dispute that Consolidation Officer has allotted chak on the basis of spot inspection. Said spot inspection is not disputed or contradicted either by Settlement Officer of Consolidation or Deputy Director of Consolidation. Settlement Officer of Consolidation has allowed appeal filed by contesting-respondents without even considering or disputing the spot inspection. Therefore, the order of Appellate Authority appears to be passed in a very cursory manner.

¶10Revisional Authority ought to have considered the revision on the basis of grounds mentioned in memo of revision as it has wide power to cure the defect, if any, committed by lower authorities and pass order on merit of the case. The finding returned that, "बन्दोब त अडिIकारी चकबन्दी ्ቛारा अपने किनणGय मे

लीय किनरी्ቌण करते हुए यह उXेलि7त किकया गया है", is perverse, since Settlement Officer of Consolidation has not recorded that he has conducted any spot inspection.

¶11In aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that Revisional Authority has not exercised its wide power and passed order without considering or appreciating the submissions made by petitioner/ revisionist in revision. The judgment of this Court in Lal Sahab (supra) also supports the case of petitioner.

¶12In view of above, writ petition is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 24.01.2023 passed by Revisional Authority is set aside. Matter is remitted back to Revisional Authority to decide afresh after considering rival submissions. Revisional Authority is at liberty to conduct spot inspection, if situation so warrants. Order Date :- 18.10.2023 AK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad