BHAGWAN YADAV Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) BY order dated 24-6-2003, Deputy Director Consolidation rescinded the proceeding under the Consolidation of Holdings Act and directed initiation of consolidation proceedings de novo after verification of Khatauni. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that thereafter, under the amended provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holding Act, the Consolidator passed an ex-parte order dated 1-7- 2005 leaning in favour of Manoj son of Brij Narain although he drew attention to the fact that the petitioner is a transferee from Brij Narain through sale-deeds dated 9-3-1983 and 19-3-1983 and further that the orders were passed by Asstt. Consolidation officer on 14-7-1998 in his favour. The learned Counsel further argued that since the order in question is an ex-parte order, the same could not be challenged and taking advantage of helplessness of the petitioner, the Opp. party is now making unstinting efforts to alienate the property to some other person. It is further argued that order passed under sub-clause (6) of the U. P. C. H. Act is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act followed by submission that no publication of record under Section 9 of the U. P. C. H. Act has been made as yet after the orders passed by Deputy Director Consolidation.

(3.) IT is further clear from the scheme of consolidation proceeding that after preparation of record under Sections 8 and 8-A, current khasra and current annual register shall be published under Section 9 (2) of the U. P. C. H. Act in the unit and only thereafter, any person could file objection within 21 days of publication of record in the unit. Section 9 (1) (b) of the Act being relevant is quoted below: "9 (1) Upon the preparation of the records and the statements mentioned in Sections 8 and 8-A, the Assistant Consolidation officer shall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) publish in the unit the current khasra and the current annual register, the khasra chakbandi, the statement of principles prepared under Section 8-A and any other records that may be prescribed to show, inter alia, the particulars referred to in Clause (a ). " According to the pleading of the petitioner, the sale-deeds were already executed on 9-3-1983 and 19-3- 1983 respectively by Brij Narain, father of contesting Opp. party and his name was also recorded on 14- 7-1998 but as entire proceedings were cancelled by the Deputy Director Consolidation, the records could not be published under Section 9 (1) (b) of the Act thereafter. He further submitted that the petitioner was without any remedy in such circumstances. He next submitted that after transfer, it is transferee who is a tenure holder and this cannot be a case of undisputed succession and by any reckoning, Section 6-A (1) will be wholly inapplicable in the present case.