ACHAL SINGH Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The plot in dispute between the petitioner and the Gaon Sabha, i.e., respondent no. 2 in the consolidation proceedings and in the present writ petition was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha in the basic year records. During the consolidation proceedings in the village, the petitioner filed objections under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') for mutation of his name in the revenue records in place of Gaon Sabha on the ground that the petitioner had been allotted a patta of the disputed plot by the Gaon Sabha. On the objections of the petitioner, Case No. 2152 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 was registered in the court of Consolidation Officer who vide his order dated 13.7.1998 allowed the said objections and directed that the petitioner be recorded as a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of the disputed plot. It appears that subsequently the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Agra Camp at Shikohabad, District Firozabad, i.e., respondent no. 1 took suo motu cognizance under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1953 and Case No. 2152/178 was registered in the court of respondent no. 1 against the order dated 13.7.1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 21.1.1999 set-aside the order dated 13.7.1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer and remanded back the matter to the Consolidation Officer to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The order dated 21.1.1999 has been passed by respondent no. 1 on the ground that the order dated 13.7.1998 was passed by the Consolidation Officer without following the procedure prescribed in law and without issuing any notice or giving any opportunity of hearing to the Gaon Sabha, i.e., respondent no. 2. It is also evident from the records that before respondent no.1, the Gaon Sabha had pleaded that the alleged patta granted to the petitioner was not in accordance with law and was, therefore, void. The respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 21.1.1999 has held that it appeared from the records filed before respondent no. 1 that the patta allegedly granted in favour of the petitioner was not a valid patta and the Consolidation Officer was liable to consider the said issue. The order dated 21.1.1999 passed by respondent no. 1 has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 21.1.1999 passed by respondent no. 1 was vitiated by error of law apparent on the face of record as the consolidation authorities did not have the jurisdiction to consider the validity of a patta executed by Gaon Sabha and in support of his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Similesh Kumar Vs. Gaon Sabha & Ors. 1977 (3) ALR 334 (Full Bench). It was further argued that under Section 48 of the Act, 1953, the respondent no. 1 had no jurisdiction to institute suo motu proceedings to test the legality of the order dated 13.7.1998 passed by the Consolidation Officer. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 21.1.1999 passed by respondent no. 1 in Case No. 2152/178 was contrary to law and liable to be set-aside.