HARI SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent- Land Management Committee, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Anay Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rupesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 5/ Bharat Singh.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plot Nos. 42, 263, 265 situated at Village Belout, Pargana and Tehsil Sikarpur, District Bulandshahr was allotted to petitioner's mother along with respondent second set on 13/7/1967. The name of petitioner along with respondents' second set was recorded in the revenue record vide order dtd. 17/4/1978. One complaint was moved against the order dtd. 17/4/1978 and Tehsildar has recalled the order dtd. 17/4/1978. The complaint filed by the complainant was allowed by Tehsildar vide order dtd. 31/8/1979. Against the order dtd. 31/8/1979, petitioner preferred a revision which was rejected accordingly petitioner approached the Commissioner who sent the reference before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue allowed the reference in favour of the petitioners. The Village in question was notified under Sec. 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act and petitioners were recorded in the basic year of the consolidation operation. Against the basic year entry of the plot in question, no title objection as prescribed under the U.P.C.H. Act against the basic year entry was filed by anybody. On 3/1/1987, Assistant Consolidation Officer passed the order for partition of the plot in question among the petitioners and respondents second set. The Village in question was denotified under Sec. 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act in the year 1990. On 3/5/2019, time barred appeal under Sec. 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act has been filed by respondent No. 5 Bharat Singh. Before Settlement Officer of Consolidation against the order dtd. 3/1/1987, Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the appeal setting aside the order dtd. 31/1/1987 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer and remanded the matter back before Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding afresh on merit. The delay of 32 years in filing the appeal under Sec. 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act has been condoned by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Against the appellate order dtd. 1/11/2019 passed by respondent No. 3, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, petitioners preferred a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation under Sec. 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act which was registered as revision No. 293 of 2019. During pendency of aforesaid revision, Consolidation Officer has decided the proceeding under Sec. 9-A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act vide order dtd. 28/12/2021 recording finding of fact that the objection/ appeal of respondent No. 5 cannot be entertained rather the party concerned can initiate proper proceeding under Sec. 198 (4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The revision filed by petitioners was proceeded before Deputy Director of Consolidation and the revision was decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Additional District Magistrate F&R allowing the revision in part setting aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dtd. 1/11/2019, order of Consolidation Officer dtd. 28/1/2021, order dtd. 3/1/1987 and plot in question was ordered to be recorded in the name of Gram Sabha. In the proceeding under Rule 109-A of the U.P.C.H. Rules, Consolidation Officer passed an order dtd. 12/4/2022 on the basis of order dtd. 22/3/2022. Hence, Writ B No. 802 of 2022 has been filed for the following relief:-

(3.) This Court entertained the Writ B No. 802 of 2022 on 25/7/2022 staying the operation of the impugned orders as well as Writ B No. 1921 of 2023 was entertained on 17/5/2023 and stayed the operation of the impugned orders.