LALTA PRASAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard I. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The dispute in the present writ petition relates to plot No. 1679M area 3-10-0 and plot No. 1677M area 10-0-0 situate in village Lacchmanpatti, Tehsil Gyanpur district Varanasi. The plots belong to Gaon Sabha which executed lease deed of different area of the said plots in favour of the petitioners in the year 1963. The Tehsildar made a report that lease executed in favour of the petitioner No. 1 by the Land Management Committee being against the provision of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the rules framed thereunder was invalid and liable to be cancelled. On the said report proceedings for cancellation were initiated against the petitioner No. 1 and he was put to notice. He contested the proceedings and filed objections. The Assistant Collector, First Class vide order dated 13.10.1969, held that lease was executed in accordance with the provision of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and the rules framed thereunder and was valid. The said order was not challenged and became final. With respect to other petitioners, no such proceedings for cancellation were ever initiated. The village where the land is situated; was notified for consolidation operations under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the basic year, the plots in dispute were recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The petitioners filed objection under Section 9 of the Act claiming rights on the basis of the lease deed in their favour. The Consolidation Officer vide judgment and order dated 8.10.1966 rejected the objection on the ground that procedure prescribed for grant of lease was not followed as such the same are invalid and confer no right upon the petitioners. The said judgment of the Consolidation Officer was affirmed in appeal by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The revision filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation also met the same fate.

(3.) It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to go into the validity of the lease deed and the orders passed, rejecting their claim holding the lease deed in their favour to be invalid, are illegal and without jurisdiction.