Lovepreet Singh and 3 Others v. Deputy Director Consolidation Muzaffarnagarand 4 Others

Court No. - 48

¶1Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2217 of 2023 Petitioner :- Lovepreet Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Consolidation Muzaffarnagarand 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Adesh Kumar,Anoop Singh,Pratik J. Nagar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani and

¶2Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1303 of 2023 Petitioner :- Bhagwant Education Development Society Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shreya Gupta,Kunal Ravi Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani and

¶3Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2086 of 2023 Petitioner :- Brijlal Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consoliation And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Anoop Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani and

¶4Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2143 of 2023 Petitioner :- Balkar Singh @ Balkara Respondent :- Deputy Director Consolidation Muzaffarnagar And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Anoop Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani and

¶5Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2135 of 2023 Petitioner :- Annagpal Respondent :- Deputy Director Consolidation Muzaffarnagar And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Anoop Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani and

¶6Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2142 of 2023 Petitioner :- Harvindra Singh And Another Respondent :- Deputy Director Consolidation And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Anoop Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani and

¶7Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2176 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Respondent :- Deputy Director Consolidation And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani and

¶8Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2210 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Respondent :- Deputy Director Consolidation And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Singh,Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani and

¶9Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2211 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Nirmala Devi Respondent :- Deputy Director Consolidation And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Adesh Kumar,Anoop Singh,Pratik J. Nagar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani and

¶10Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2218 of 2023 Petitioner :- Chaman Singh Respondent :- Deputy Director Consolidation And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Anoop Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushal Kishore Mani Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Heard S/Sri Pratik J. Nagar, Ashok Kumar Singh and Ashish Kumar Singh, learned Advocates for their respective petitioner (hereinafter collectively referred to as 'counsels for petitioners'), Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for contesting respondent and learned Standing Counsel for State.

¶2It is being vehemently contended by counsel for respective parties that their valuable right on land in dispute where various constructions are made as well as it is used for agricultural purposes from which they have been summarily deprived by State Authorities.

¶3Learned counsels for petitioners pointed out that on basis of a report that land in dispute was recorded as 'Khola' a term which is considered to be generally used for a 'Jalmagna' land but it has different meaning also. It was held that land in dispute belongs to Gaon Sabha and petitioners have no right over it. A finding was returned that entry of non-agricultural land was a fictitious entry.

¶4Learned counsels for petitioners further submits that separate appeals were filed against order passed by Consolidation Officer, however, since they were in apprehension that it would not be heard since a transfer petition was pending but Appellate Authority proceeded with appeals and rejected them by a common order dated 16.09.2022.

¶5Learned counsels for petitioners further submits that separate revision petitions were filed, which were decided separately, however, all revision petitions were rejected. Learned counsels for petitioners tried to convince this Court that on basis of document and legal submissions, petitioners have a good case, however, Revisional Authority has proceeded and considered the submission of State Authorities only. The Court has asked specific queries to counsels for petitioners that whether submissions raised before this Court on basis of document available in writ petitions were placed before Revisional Authority or such arguments were taken as grounds in memo of revision but they fairly submit that such grounds are not mentioned in any specific words though such pleadings were vaguely taken.

¶6Learned counsels for petitioners further submits that legal issues are raised and interpretation of certain documents, revenue records and terminology used are required to be considered, therefore, this Court may consider the case or remit the matter back to Deputy Director of Consolidation with further liberty to raise all legal grounds available along with all requisite documents to be placed before Revisional Authority since their valuable right has been denied after a very long period of time.

¶7Learned counsel for contesting respondent submits that it is a case arising out of an apparent fraud and revenue records are not much disputed. Despite it is a case of fraud, petitioners were heard by Appellate Authority as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation, however, petitioners failed to prove their case, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed.

¶8It is not under dispute that on basis of revenue records, there are long entries in favour petitioners though it is well settled that such long revenue entries have only presumption in favour of petitioners and in case of fraud that could be set aside, however, I find merit in the argument of learned counsels for petitioners that since before Appellate Authority as well as before Deputy Director of Consolidation, matters were rushed and due to inadvertence, proper grounds and documents were not placed before the Authority as well as proper assistance was not given by their respective Advocates to Authority, therefore, matter could be remitted.

¶9There is another reason which finds merit for consideration that there would be no prejudice to respondent-State, if further opportunity is granted to petitioners to place their case before the Revisional Authority since the State authorities have also taken many years to challenge the entries made in favour of petitioners.

¶10In the aforesaid circumstances, and in interest of justice all writ petitions are disposed of with following directions/ observations:-

(i) The impugned orders passed in respective revisions by Deputy Director of Consolidation are set aside and all revisions are remitted for afresh consideration. Petitioners will be at liberty to file additional grounds or documents before Deputy Director of Consolidation within a period of three weeks from today. This liberty will also be with respondent-State

(ii) Thereafter, the Deputy Director of Consolidation will hear matter afresh and decide the issues within a period of three months, within its wide power as granted under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

(iii) Parties will not take any adjournment and in case any prayer regarding adjournment, Deputy Director of Consolidation will have liberty to dismiss the revision petitions forthwith, even in a case of call for abstention from work, concerned Advocate or parties in person have to appear before concerned authority without any excuse whatsoever.

(iv) These writ petitions are disposed of with observation that at this stage, this Court has not ventured deeply into merits of case, so far as in regard to effect of long revenue entries as well as allegation of fictitious entries and details of entries and nomenclature of land used in revenue records. Order Date :- 30.11.2023 P. Pandey High Court of Judicature at Allahabad