MAKRU YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition seeks quashing of notification no. 280/I -14 -2011 -71/01(01)/79 dated 23rd August, 2012 issued in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 read with Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act 1904 partially modifying notification no. 71/(I)/Bando 79/11/79 dated 19.1.1984. It cancels survey and record operations regarding village Manjha Baretha, Pargana Haveli Awadh, Tehsil Sadar, District Faizabad in compliance with the orders of the High Court dated 16.08.2007 passed in writ petition no. 32 of 2006 which provided that the consolidation proceedings in the said village be completed within five years.

(2.) THIS petition pertains to village Manjha Baretha (wrongly mentioned as Manjha Barehara in the impugned notification) which has been the subject matter of several writ petitions filed earlier regarding notifications issued under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and it is appropriate to enumerate the sequence of events chronologically so as to fully appreciate the controversy involved in this petition.

(3.) BY notification no. 71(1) -Settlement 19.1.70 19.2.84 the village Manjha Baretha was brought under record and survey operations. This notification was issued in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Subsequently a notification no. 73/G -40/54/80 was issued under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on 10.2.2000 and thereby the village in question was brought under consolidation operations also. Consequent to this notification two writ petitions were filed before this Court. The first writ petition, numbered 877 of 2002, was filed by Mahant Jagdish Das Shastri and the second, being writ petition no. 955 of 2002, filed by Laxman Prasad. Both these writ petitions were filed for quashing the notification dated 10.02.2000 issued under Section 4(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act on the ground, inter alia, that the village Manjha Baretha lies within the municipal limits of Faizabad; the village lies on the river bed of the river Ghagra, also referred to as Manjha, and, therefore, could not be brought under consolidation operations in view of the Section 3(2) and the explanations (ii), (iii) and (iv) thereto; the land was subject to fluvial action and intensive soil erosion, besides being subject to prolonged water logging and, lastly, that the land of the village in question could not be included in a consolidation area since Zamindari had not been abolished. Upon a consideration of the grounds taken in the writ petitions, the same were disposed of by the order dated 19.11.2002 giving liberty to the petitioners therein to represent their case before the Secretary, Revenue and the District Deputy Director of Consolidation who were required to consider the same after holding a reasonable enquiry and thereafter take a decision, by a reasoned order within the period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order and for this purposes the consolidation operations were stayed for a period of two weeks.