MOHD SHEOLI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) U. S. Tripathi, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 26-4-1976 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh in revision No. 274, on the basis of which entry in favour of petitioner over plot No. 406 was expunged, vide order dated 12-12-1980.

(2.) DURING consolidation operation in village Basaratpur, Tahsil Ghosi, District Azamgarh a partal was done and the area of plot No. 406 was found 180 kari on the spot, in khata No. 193 but entry in khata No. 193 in the name of Gaon Sabha was regarding 500 karis. According to entry at the spot 320 kari area of khata No. 481 found in the name of respondents IInd set. The remaining areas of 320 kari were found in the khata No. 122 jointly recorded in the names of petitioners along with respondents IVth set. The Consolidation Officer decided the matter in case No. 1453 under Section 9-A (2) of U. P. Con solidation of Holdings Act and corrected the entry of 500 kari reducing it to 280 kari, vide its judgment dated 28-7- 1973. The objection was filed by one Sagir alleging that he had his abadi of 50 kari land in plot No. 406. One Abdul Hamid also filed objection alleging that 425 karis of the said plot was his abadi. However, Gaon Sabha did not file any objection. The Consolida tion Officer had not passed any order in respect of Khata No. 122 and confined its order in respect of Khata Nos. 48 and 193. The respondents IInd set filed appeal No. 1058 of 1974 against the said judgment of Consolidation Officer dated 6-4-1974. The Assistant Settlement Officer (Con solidation) dismissed the appeal, vide its judgment dated 5-7-1974. Thereafter, respondents IInd set filed revision No. 274 under Section 148 U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The petitioners and the respondent IVth set were not impleaded as party in the said revision. In the said revision the Deputy Director of Consolidation dis turbed entry of khata No. 122, which was recorded in the name of petitioners and declared it to be abadi of Gaon Sabha, vide order dated 26-4- 1976. On the basis of it entries were made in Khatauni on 12-12-1980, by which 210 kari area Of plot No. 406 was recorded as abadi class 6 and remaining 210 kari area of said plot was entered in the name of Gaon Sabha.

(3.) IT is not disputed that during con solidation operation, the area of plot No. 406 was found on the spot as 820 kari, 500 kari was recorded in khata No. 193 in the name of Gaon Sabha, which during partal was found 180 kari, an area of 320 kari of said plot was recorded in khata No. 48 in the name of respondents IInd set. The same area was found on the spot during partal. The remaining area was recorded in khata No. 122. The Consolidation Officer expunged the entry in respect of khata No. 48, which included plot No. 406. The Set tlement Officer (Consolidation) con firmed the above order of the Consolida tion Officer and dismissed the appeal. The above order was not in respect of khata No. 122 containing plot No. 406. IT is also not disputed that petitioners were not party before Consolidation Officer and Settle ment Officer (Consolidation ). Against the order of Settlement Officer (Consolida tion) the respondents IInd set preferred revision No. 274 of 1974 under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolida tion, but the petitioners were not im-pleaded in the said revision also. That the order passed by Deputy Director of Con solidation was also in respect of khata No. 122 containing plot No. 100 and by the impugned order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had ordered that 210 kari area of plot No. 406 be recoided abadi of class 6 and remaining 610 kari area be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. Thus, by the impugned order, the area of plot No. 406, which was recorded in khata No. 122 in the name of petitioners was also ordered to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The above order amounted expunction of the name of petitioners recorded over plot No. 406 of khata No. 122, but they were not heard before pass ing the impugned order and therefore, they were deprived of their legal right of putting their case before Deputy Director of Consolidation. Since, the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was passed without impleading the petitioners and also without hearing them, it cannot stand against the petitioners and is liable to be quashed. The writ petition accord ingly, succeeds.