SHIKSHA SAMITI MOTI MAHAL Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Kalia, Senior Advocate and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri R.A. Upadhyaya, for the petitioners and Sri H.K. Bhatt, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for State of U.P., for the respondents. W.P. No. 436 (Consolidation) of 2009 has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 8.2.2008, dismissing objection of the petitioners for recording its name over land in dispute, situated in village Rampur Deorai, tahsil Bakshi Ka Talab, district Lucknow, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 17.7.2009, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and letter of Deputy Collector dated 21.7.2009, to comply aforesaid orders. In this writ petition, an interim order dated 27.7.2009 staying the ejectment of the petitioners was passed. In the meantime, the revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 28.8.2010. Hence W.P. No. 659 (Consolidation) of 2010, has been filed, challenging aforesaid three orders, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE dispute relates to plots 322 to 326, 329, 330, 498 to 499, 512, 522 -C and 525 (old plots 474, 475, 698, 699, 711 to 714, 716 to 736, 744 to 749) of village Rampur Deorai, tahsil Bakshi Ka Talab, district Lucknow. In basic consolidation records, the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Gram Sewak Prashikshan Kendra, Kshetriya Gram Vikas Sansthan, Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow (respondent -4), which is a department of State of U.P. The petitioners filed an objection (registered as Case No. 61 of 2007 -08) under section 9 -A of the Act for recording its name over the land in dispute. It has been stated by the petitioners that land in dispute was previously holdings of private tenure holders and acquired by State of U.P. under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On possession being taken over the acquired land, it was vested in State of U.P. free from all encumbrances. Hon'ble Governor, State of U.P. created a grant of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioners through registered deed dated 26.4.1965 under the provisions of Government Grants Act, 1895. The petitioner occupied the land in dispute in term of the grant dated 26.4.1965 and is continuing in possession of it. It has been illegally recorded in the name of Gram Sewak Prashikshan Kendra, Kshetriya Gram Vikas Sansthan without any order of competent authority and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The objection of the petitioners was contested by respondent -4, who stated that the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Gram Sewak Prashikshan Kendra, Kshetriya Gram Vikas Sansthan, since before the date of vesting. Land in dispute was granted to the petitioner for a period of three years and grant was never renewed after three years as such, right if any, of the petitioner has already came to an end. The petitioner filed the copy of grant dated 26.4.1965 and examined Uma Kant Mishra and Bhagwati Singh as their witnesses. On behalf of respondent -4, A.B. Srivastava was examined. The Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 8.2.2008 held that grant dated 26.4.1965 was given to the petitioners with condition to develop the land for the purposes, for which it was granted, within three years. There is nothing on record to prove that grant was ever renewed. Period of three years has already come to an end as such at present the petitioners have no right over the land in dispute and their names cannot be recorded over it. According to section 3(2 -a), provisions of the Act are not applicable to the land in dispute. Although the petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute but on the basis of possession, no right can be granted over Government land. Land in dispute was recorded as Government land in last consolidation and there is no illegality in the entry. On these findings objection of the petitioners was dismissed.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. According to the petitioners land in dispute was previously holdings of private tenure holders and was acquired by State of U.P. under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On the possession being taken over the acquired land, it was vested in State of U.P. free from all encumbrances. Hon'ble Governor, State of U.P., through registered deed dated 26.4.1965, created a grant of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioners under the provisions of Government Grants Act, 1895. The petitioner occupied the land in dispute in terms of the grant dated 26.4.1965 and is continuing in possession of it. The petitioners became 'Government lessee' under Section 133 -A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. In previous consolidation, the land in dispute was wrongly recorded in the name of respondents. While case of respondent -4 is that land in dispute was recorded in the name of "Gram Sewak Prashikshan Farm" in previous consolidation record, corresponding to the year 1371 F. Previous consolidation came to an end by notification under Section 52 of the Act dated 8.2.1964. The village was again placed under consolidation operation in the year 1994, while objection of the petitioner was filed in 2002 for the first time for recording their names on the basis of grant dated 26.4.1965. As the petitioners could not comply with the terms of the grant within period of three years as such right of the petitioners, if any, came to an end. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel placed reliance over the judgments of Supreme Court in Sri Nath Singh v. Board of Revenue U.P., and Hira Lal v. Gajjan, 1990 RD 55 (SC) in which it has been held that a sub -tenant in possession of the land in dispute acquired adhivasi right under section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. As in this case, it has been found by the consolidation authorities that the petitioners had been in possession over the land in dispute as such the case law relied upon by Additional Chief Standing Counsel does not help the respondents. Otherwise also no one claimed adhivasi right under section 20.