MUZEEB Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order of Joint Director of Consolidation whereby in exercise of power under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act (in short 'Act') he directed expunction of an amaldaramad made in CH Form 23. The amaldaramad expunged is in respect of plot No. 466 of village Seedha Sultanpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Azamgarh recorded in the name of petitioner and in its place entry to be made is of "Deeh Asthan". The amaldaramad, which has been ordered to be expunged is in the name of petitioner recorded in pursuance of an order passed by Consolidation Officer on 31-3-1960 in case No. 2355.

(2.) The facts necessary for determining present controversy as set-out in writ petition are that the Consolidation Officer Azamgarh passed an order in Case No. 2355 of 31-3-60 to enter the name of petitioner Muzeeb over plot No. 338 (Old No. 466). The amaldaramad was done accordingly in relevant records of consolidation operation. It was also incorporated in revenue records later on. The order was given effect in CH Form 41 and CH Form 45 in the year 1960, the year in which consolidation operation also concluded in village. The petitioner claimed that the land was finally settled as part of petitioner's holding under consolidation operation. The District Government counsel (Revenue) Azamgarh (In short 'D. G. C.') challenged the amaldaramad by filing an application on 27-10-94 wherein it has been averred that the amaldaramad in respect of plot No. 338 (Old No. 466) was fraudulent. According to the D. G. C. the order of Consolidation Officer dated 31-3-60, which is basis of amaldaramad, is forged and non-existing order and, therefore, the amaldaramad was rightly deleted without any notice to petitioner. He claimed that plot in dispute be continued in papers as "Deeh Asthan". The Joint Director of Consolidation examined the matter and on being satisfied in respect of stand taken by D. G. C. Allowed the application by order in question without hearing petitioner. The Joint Director of Consolidation relied upon the decision of Supreme Court of India in U. P. Junior Doctors Action Committee v. Dr. B. Seetal Nandwani, AIR 1991 SC 909 for passing order without affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner. He relied on proposition of law that rule of natural justice in respect of affording opportunity of hearing before passing of order do not apply in a case where something is done on the basis of a forged order. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Joint Director of Consolidation, the petitioner filed this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for petitioner argued that the order in question was passed during earlier consolidation operation in the year 1960, which was given effect in papers, and if the Joint Director of Consolidation considered that correction of papers in respect of amaldaramad of the 1960 is to be dropped out then opportunity of hearing to petitioner before passing impugned order was necessary. The learned standing counsel opposed argument and submitted that as the order is forged, which gave rise to amaldaramad, it was not necessary for Joint Director of Consolidation to provide opportunity of hearing to petitioner before passing the order.