UDAY PAL SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of mandamus in proceedings under Section 20 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short Act). Under paragraph 4 etc. of the petition, it has been averred that a number of irregularities have been committed in assigning valuation to the plots held by the respective share holders and the members of the Consolidation Committee have not been consulted.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner urged that petitioner no. 1 was the Member of the Consolidation Committee and petitioner no. 2 along with other tenure holders made representations before the Consolidation Commissioner U. P. Lucknow (vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition). In that representation a number of grievance about excessive valuation of the plots and/or under valuation of the plots were alleged and as a result thereof, the Consolidation Commissioner directed the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to make an inquiry regarding the allotments of Chaks. It was further urged by the learned counsel that even at the stage of Section 20 of the Act valuation of plots could be corrected, the interest of all tenure holders of the village were affected vitally, hence, the Consolidation Authorities respondents nos. 1 and 2 may be directed to assign correct valuation to the plots of respective tenure holders.

(3.) UNDER section 20 the procedure is that upon the preparation of the Provisional Consolidation Scheme, the Asstt. Consolidation Officer would send to the tenure holders concerned and persons interested, notices containing relevant extracts therefrom, and sub-section (2) of section 20 enacts that any person aggrieved after the service of notices under Sec. 20 (1) shall file an objection about the Provisional Consolidation Scheme. In this view of the matter the intention of the law givers, as expressed through the language employed, appears to be that upon the preparation of the relevant records as mentioned under section 8 or 8-A that notices have to be served on the individual tenure-holders and they will have to file objection under section 9 (2) of the Act, about the correction of valuation. On the other hand often the service of relevant extracts from Provisional Consolidation Scheme the person interested in the correctness of the provisions of the consolidation scheme should file an objection under section 20 (2). It is accordingly abundantly clear that about valuation of the plots objection could be filed at the stage of section 9 (2) and not at the stage of section 20 (2). Further single objection is also not ordinarily contemplated by the Act except in the case of co-tenants.