MANJUL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Rahul Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for respondent Gram Panchayat, Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 8 and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Ganga Dhar son of Banshi Dhar filed a suit under Sec. 229B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 claiming bhoomidhari right over the plot No. 345 area 1.332 hectare and plot No. 826 area 0.006 hectare situated in Village Sithauli Pargana Islamnagar Tehsil Bisuali District Badaun. The aforementioned suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dtd. 9/9/1982. On the basis of aforementioned decree, Ganga Dhar was recorded as bhoomidhar of the plots in question in the revenue records. The appeal filed by State against the aforementioned judgment and decree was allowed vide judgment dtd. 19/4/1983 setting aside the judgment and decree dtd. 9/9/1982 and the suit was accordingly dismissed. The second appeal filed by Ganga Dhar was ultimately dismissed as abated in view of the provisions contained under Sec. 5(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act. The name of Ganga Dhar was recorded in the basic year of the consolidation operation. After the death of Ganga Dhar, his legal heirs executed a sale deed dtd. 17/10/2007 in favour of petitioner in respect to plot Nos. 345 and 826 accordingly petitioner became bhoomidhar with transferable rights of the plot Nos. 345 and 826 and remained in possession over the same. On the basis of sale deed dtd. 17/10/2007, the name of petitioner was recorded under Sec. 12 of U.P.C.H. Act in case No. 238. Respondent No. 8 filed an application dtd. 24/9/2024 before the District Magistrate, Badaun. On the basis of aforementioned application of respondent No. 8, reports were submitted by the consolidation authorities and a case has been registered under Sec. 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act before Consolidation Officer Bisauli as case No. 0669 of 2024 State v. Rama Devi and others. In the aforementioned case No. 0669 of 2024, an order dtd. 9/10/2024 has been passed by Consolidation Officer for expunging the name of Ganga Dhar/ legal heir and their vendees from the plot in question as well as for recording the plot in question as naveen parti/ Class5 (1) Category plot. On the basis of the order dtd. 9/10/2024, another order dtd. 10/10/2024 was passed by Consolidation Officer in case No. 0670 of 2024 State v. Gram Sabha for cancelling the exchange ratio of the plot Nos. 345 and 826. Consolidation Officer passed another order under Sec. 42A of U.P.C.H. Act in case No. 0671 of 2024 State v. Smt. Manjul and others taking out the plot No. 345 from the chak of the petitioner and recording the same as naveen parti plot. Hence WritB No. 4339 of 2024 has been filed for the following relief:

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned orders have been passed in arbitrary and illegal manner. He further submitted that without initiating the proper proceeding in respect to the basic year entry of the plot in question, the entry of the plot in question has been expunged under impugned orders. He submitted that no notice and opportunity of hearing has been afforded to petitioner who is recorded over the plot in question at the time of initiation of the instant proceeding. He submitted that earlier proceeding initiated under Sec. 229B of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act was ultimately abated along with the suit but the vendor of the petitioner as well as petitioner after execution of sale deed remained recorded over the plot in question, as such, unless the proper objection is filed at appropriate stage in the consolidation proceeding, the entry of the plot in question cannot be expunged. He further submitted that petitioner is recorded over the plot in question under Sec. 12 of U.P.C.H. Act by way of registered sale deed which has not been challenged in any Court of law, as such, the entry of the plot in question cannot be altered by the consolidation authorities. He further submitted that Village was notified under Sec. 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act on 27/10/1990 accordingly the consolidation proceeding has been undertaken but no objection under Sec. 9 of U.P.C.H. Act has been filed by anybody in respect to the basic year entry at the proper stage of consolidation operation. He submitted that longstanding entry cannot be expunged by the authorities without affording notice and opportunity of hearing to the recorded tenure holder. He submitted that complaint was filed on 24/9/2024 and the impugned orders have been passed by the authorities on 9/10/2024 expunging the petitioner's entry which fully demonstrate that orders have been passed without notice and opportunity of hearing to the recorded tenure holder. He further submitted that title proceeding cannot be decided without framing issues in the proceeding.