PARASRAM Vs. DY. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION AYODHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.

(2.) Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 15.01.2019 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kumarganj-II, Ayodhya whereby he has ordered that the land comprising in gata nos.1192, 1196, 726, 727 and 1157 be kept out of consolidation operations for the reason that the land appears to be non-agricultural in nature. The said order has been passed by the Consolidation Officer on an instruction issued by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was issued on a complaint made by the respondent nos.5 to 7. The said complaint was made on 09.11.2018 by respondent nos.5 to 7 and on the said complaint, the Deputy Director of Consolidation directed the Consolidation Officer to submit his report on 14.11.2018. The Consolidation Officer thus, submitted his report on 29.12.2018 opining therein that on the basis of spot inspection, it transpired that gata no.1192, 1196 and 726 are found non-agricultural for the reason that the land is lying either parti or is covered by wild bushes. On the basis of said report, the Deputy Director of Consolidation directed the Consolidation Officer to register a case under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and take appropriate decision thereon.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel opposing the writ petition has stated that the order dated 15.01.2019 passed by the Consolidation Officer which is under challenge herein is appellable under Section 11 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the petitioners cannot be permitted to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal and challenge the order passed by the Consolidation Officer straightaway by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.