Bhagwat Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Others

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.@mdashHeard Sri D.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.S. Shukla for the petitioner and Sri A.P. Paul for the contesting respondents.

The petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Additional District Magistrate (Kanoon Vyavastha), Mathura.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in proceedings for allotment of chaks, three chaks were allotted to the petitioner. A corresponding map was also prepared. In this final consolidation map, the area of the petitioner''s chak was shown to be less than the actual area.

2. Aggrieved by such reduction in area of this chak in the final consolidation map, the petitioner filed an application for correction of the same under Section 42A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

An objection was filed by the respondent No. 3 alleging therein that the application under Section 42A was not maintainable and that an application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act had already been filed by the petitioner for the same relief.

3. Thereafter, the report was called for and was submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer stating therein that the shape of Plot No. 1826 was liable to be corrected.

4. The Consolidation Officer rejected the application of the petitioner by his order dated 20.12.2013. The order of the Consolidation Officer has been affirmed in revision vide order dated 9.9.2014. Hence this writ petition challenging the orders dated 20.12.2013 and 9.9.2014.

5. At the stage, it would be relevant to note that although the order dated 9.9.2014 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Kanoon Vyavastha), Mathura is under challenge, the said authority has not been impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition.

6. The only issue for consideration in the writ petition is as to whether the application filed by the petitioner under Section 42A for correction of the final consolidation map after issuance of notification under Section 52(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, was maintainable or not.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that such an application was maintainable and he has placed reliance on the decision in Mukhtar Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, , more specifically paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment. This judgment, after noticing the scheme of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Rules framed thereunder has held that the duty of revising the revenue records is cast on the consolidation authorities and it is for such authorities to implement the orders passed under the Act. It has further been held that there is no requirement in this scheme of the Act for a party to apply for execution within a specified period of limitation, as is the position under the Civil Procedure Code. It has therefore been held that till the order passed by the consolidation authorities are not implemented, as contemplated under the Act and the Rules, the proceedings under the Act would deemed to be pending. On the aforesaid reasoning, it has been held that such proceedings would be deemed to be pending on the date of denotification of the village and therefore, the orders passed during consolidation operations can be implemented in view of Section 52(2) of the Act.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has relied upon the judgment in Ghamari Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, .

9. Apart from the judgments cited by the parties, there are several Division Bench decisions in Ghafoor Vs. Addl. Commissioner and Others, ; Ali Khan Vs. Ram Prasad and Another, and decisions by the Single Judge in Ram Niwas and others v. Consolidation Officer and others, 1989 RD 201; Nanhki v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1995 RD 264, which hold that the provisions of Section 42A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act cannot be invoked once the consolidation operations in the village have come to a close by a notification under Section 52(1) of the Act. Upon consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the judgments cited by them, I am constrained to hold that the Division Bench judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner has no application in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In the case cited, it appears that the final orders passed by the consolidation authorities had not been implemented. This is not the situation in the case at hand. Here the orders were duly implemented and the case of the petitioner is only that the incorporation was not correct and required correction. In view of sub-section 3 of Section 27, any incorrect incorporation has to be corrected under the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, if the consolidation operations have come to a close.

Accordingly and for the reasons given above, I find no illegality in the impugned orders.

The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.