Indrajeet vs Deputy Director of Consolidation

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Shri Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Manoj Kumar, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent No. 4.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.06.2016, passed by the Consolidation Officer, whereby, it has been directed that the basic year entry with regard to the land in question be maintained and the order dated 05.11.2016 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation affirming the order of the Consolidation Officer subject to certain directions contained in the order itself.

The dispute pertains to certain land, which in the basic year record, was recorded in the name of the respondents consequent to an order of mutation passed in their favour, in proceedings, under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, on the basis of a will allegedly executed in their favour by one Bal Govind.

An objection, under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the daughters of Bal Govind, disputing the will set up by the respondents in the mutation proceedings.

During the pendency of this objection, it appears that the Settlement Officer Consolidation granted the daughters permission, under Section 5-c of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, to sell the land. The daughters thereafter, sold the land to the petitioners on 07.03.1990.

The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 1.06.1997 allowed the objection filed by the daughters of Bal Govind. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed an objection under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, claiming mutation on the basis of sale deed executed by the daughters of Bal Govind.

A restoration application filed against the order of the Consolidation Officer allowing the objection of the daughters of Bal Govind, was rejected.

The respondents, thereafter, filed an appeal, under Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which was allowed and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 13.06.1997, was set aside.

The consequential revision was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur.

From the facts noticed above, it emerges that as on date, the dispute arising out of the objection, under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, filed by the daughters of Bal Govind, is still pending consideration and has not been decided by the Consolidation Officer.

Prima facie, it appears that the Settlement Officer Consolidation in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5(c) of the Act, illegally granted permission to persons to execute a sale deed of land over which, their names was not recorded in the basic year and whose objection, under Section 9-A of the Act was pending. The same in my considered opinion, was a wholly illegal order and has given rise to the complications where-from this writ petition arises.

Since, the earlier order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 13.06.1997 was set aside and the matter is pending consideration before the Consolidation Officer, a dispute arose between the parties to what amaldaramad should be made in the revenue records, as regard the land in dispute.

It appears that the matter came up before this Court earlier and when the orders passed by the writ Court were not complied with, contempt proceedings were initiated. When notices on the contempt petition were issued, the Consolidation Officer on 25.06.2016 directed that the basic year entry be maintained in the revenue records as the title dispute had not been decided and was pending consideration before the Consolidation Officer.

Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 25.06.2016, the petitioners preferred a revision, which was dismissed. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur while dismissing the revision, directed the Consolidation Officer to ensure that the basic year entry should be maintained only as regards, the land belonging to Bal Govind and that it should not pertain to any other land. It is these two orders, which have been impugned in the writ petition.

Upon a consideration of the submissions made and upon a perusal of the record, this Court finds that the dispute in this petition has arisen primarily because the Settlement Officer Consolidation, granted permission to an objector, namely, the daughters of Bal Govind, whose names were not recorded in the revenue records and whose objection, under Section 9-A(2) of the Act was pending consideration, to sell the land. In consequence to this illegal order, a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner and this is how the petitioners are before this Court.

This Court also finds that the illegal order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation in proceedings, under Section 5-c of the U.p. Consolidation of Holdings Act has given rise to unnecessary litigation, which has required the matter to travel up to this Court, at least twice.

However, since the objection, under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, filed by the vendors of the petitioner has still not been decided by the Consolidation Officer and the earlier order passed in their favour has already been set aside, the order passed by the Consolidation Officer maintaining the basic year entry in the revenue records, cannot be faulted with.

The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur has rightly rejected the revision filed by the petitioners. He has also, rightly directed the Consolidation Officer to ensure that his order dated 25.06.2016 pertains only to the land, which belonged to Bal Govind and which is in dispute between the parties.

Till such time, the objection under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, is not decided, the basic year entry has to be maintained, as directed by the Consolidation Officer.

The writ petition is therefore, wholly devoid of merit and is dismissed.