RAM NANDAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GYANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition arises out of proceedings under Sec. 9 -A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Consolidation operations started in the village. The Petitioner No. 2 Smt. Marjadi filed objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer for recording her name in accordance with the lease executed by Gaon Sabha in her favour on 3 -12 -1960. It appears that at the time of execution of the lease, the Petitioner No. 1 Ram Nandan, husband of the Petitioner No. 2, was the village Pradhan. Objection was also filed by one Sheo Baran who is alleged to be brother of Ram Nandan claiming rights on the basis of another lease of the same date. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection holding that the lease was not executed after due formalities and the Petitioners were claiming on the basis of lease and bad not proved their possession and consequently the objection was liable to be rejected.

(2.) Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was filed by Sheo Baran and Smt. Marjadi. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that the lease dated 3 -12 -1960 was supported with agenda and was also registered. There was no objection to that and right from agenda to publication every thing was in order. He accordingly allowed the appeal and ordered that the Appellants to be entered as sirdars over plots Nos. 506 area 3 Bighas, 65 area 3 Biswa 10 Dhur and 288 area 1 Bigha: total area 5 Bighas, 3 Biswas 10 Dhur in favour of Sheo Baran. He ordered them to be entered as Sirdars at a revenue of 15 rupees, 10 Annas 6 pies. Against the order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation), a belated revision was filed by new Pradhan of Gaon Sabha. The revision has been allowed by the Deputy Director (Consolidation) relying upon a case, Major Rameshwar Sahai v/s. Deputy Director of Consolidation, reported in, 1973 AWR 238. The revisional Court held that the validity of the lease could be examined by the Consolidation Authorities. He also condoned the delay in filing the revision. He allowed the revision on the ground that under Sec. 28 -C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, the Pradhan could not have executed the lease in favour of his own wife and real brother without permission of the Collector. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised three questions before me. The first question raised by him is that the case of Major Rameshwar Sahai (supra) has been specifically overruled in the case of Similesh Kumar v/s. Gaon Sabha, a Full Bench of our Court, reported in : 1977 AWC 259. The Full Bench held that the Consolidation Authorities had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity of the lease or allotment granted by the Land Management Committee. The case of Major Rameshwar Sahai was specifically considered. Under the circumstances the Consolidation Authorities could not go into the validity of the lease and were bound by it. The second objection of the learned Counsel is that Sec. 28 -C was added in Panchayat Raj Act by U.P. Act No. 33 of 1961. The Act was gazetted in extra ordinary gazette dated 3rd December, 1961. Obviously on the date of lease, i.e. 3rd December, 1960, the provision relied upon by the Deputy Director (Consolidation), i.e. Sec. 28 -C of the Panchayat Raj Act was not on the Statute. I have also looked into U.P. Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam and I do not find that the aforesaid provision has been made retrospective. Under the circumstances the provisions of Sec. 28 -C of the Panchayat Raj Act had no application to the instant case. The third argument of the learned Counsel is that Sec. 28 -C applies only to a case where the benefit is gained by the office bearer himself. Sub -section (1) of Sec. 28 -C reads as under:

(3.) In the result, the present petition is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director (Consolidation) in revision No. 806 decided on 14 -5 -1975 is quashed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.