URMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mohan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ramakant Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, Mr. Achal Singh, learned counsel for the gaon sabha and Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Sec. 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) was initiated on the report of consolidator dtd. 7/9/2008 on the ground of double entry of plot No. 1476 area .016 hectare and Plot No. 1482 area 0.013 hectare. The reference was prepared and the same was produced before Assistant Consolidation Officer, Chitrakoot. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, Chitrakoot passed an order dtd. 6/10/2008 after issuing notice to the concerned parties affecting the chak holder Nos. 528, 292, 618 and 300, chak marg, drainage and abadi land. The reference was sent before consolidation officer for approval and consolidation officer passed an order on 7/10/2008 registering the case under Sec. 20 of U.P.CH. Act fixing next date 25/10/2008. On 25/10/2008, the Consolidation Officer passed the final order to the effect that plot No. 143/1 M area 0.015 hectare be given to respondent No. 5-Narvada Prasad and Schedule was accordingly prepared. Against the order dtd. 25/10/2008, recall application was filed by petitioners before consolidation officer in case No. 15 along with prayer for condonation of delay. In the aforementioned restoration application, it was mentioned by the petitioners that tubewell of the petitioners is situated over plot No. 141/1 M, which has been given to respondent No. 5, as such order should be recalled. Consolidation officer vide order dtd. 3/8/2019 allowed the restoration application of petitioners setting aside the order dtd. 25/10/2008 and restored the proceeding on its original number. Against order dtd. 3/8/2019, respondent No. 5 filed recall application, which was allowed by consolidation officer vide order dtd. 23/5/2023 recalling the order dtd. 03/8/2019. Respondent No. 5 filed an appeal against order 23/5/2023, 3/8/2019, 7/10/2008 before Settlement Officer Consolidation. The aforementioned appeal was heard by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Chitrakoot and the same was allowed vide order dtd. 16/5/2024 remanding the matter before consolidation officer setting aside the order dtd. 7/10/2008, 25/10/2008, 3/8/2019 and 23/5/2013 with direction to register the proceeding under Sec. 42-A of U.P.C.H. Act and decide the same by giving a opportunity of hearing to the parties. Against the order dtd. 16/5/2014 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, revision was filed on behalf of petitioners under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act which was heard and dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot vide order dtd. 30/1/2025. Hence this writ petition for the following relief :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that initial proceeding was registered under Sec. 21 of U.P.C.H. Act and the same was decided in accordance with the law after issuing notice of all the parties. He submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has illegally set aside the orders passed by Consolidation Officer under Sec. 21 of U.P.C.H. Act and remanded the matter back before Consolidation Officer to register the proceeding under Sec. 42-A of U.P.C.H. Act, which is illegal exercise of appellate jurisdiction. He submitted that revision filed by petitioners has been dismissed without considering the case as set up in the revision. He submitted that respondent No.5 has got his chak amended at the final stage of consolidation proceeding as such impugned orders passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Chitrakoot to register the proceeding under Sec. 42-A of U.P.C.H. Act is wholly illegal. He submitted that plot in question is not original holding of respondent No. 5 nor he was allotted any chak over the same. He further submitted that respondent No. 5 in order to grab the tube-well of the petitioners got the plot No. 143 M area 0.015 hectare allotted in his favour vide order date 25/10/2008. He further submitted that proceeding under Sec. 20 of U.P.C.H. Act was initiated at the report of the consolidator accordingly reference was prepared and approved by the consolidation authorities. He submitted that impugned orders should be set aside in view of the grounds set up in the writ petition.