GAON SABHA MUDHIYARI Vs. CONSOLIDATION COMMISSIONER U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) The Petitioner is the Gram Sabha through it's Pradhan praying for a mandamus to the Respondent - Consolidation Commissioner to take an appropriate action with regard to the alleged fictitious entries which have been reflected in the report of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 31.7.2000. The submission raised is that Suo motu action be taken for correcting the said entries which can be done in proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is submitted that entries are quite old and the consolidation operations are about to conclude, therefore, serious prejudice shall be caused to the Gaon Sabha.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the report of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27.12.2008, it is evident that the Gaon Sabha itself has defaulted in not taking any appropriate action through the judicial process that is available under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Such matters relating to correction of entries or existence of forged entries can be rectified only through a judicial process by way of reference if prepared in accordance with law and presented before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act or by filing an objection under Section 9-A(2) if it involves the right or title of a tenure holder. Instead of adopting the available procedure, there appears to be a mis-directed approach in filing applications on the administrative side.