Jain Steel and Alloys Ltd. vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad and others

Vikram Nath.

Heard Sri Namwar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel representing the Gaon Sabha (respondent Nos. 3 and 4) and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 5.1.1979 and the order dated 24.10.1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad dismissing the revision of the petitioner. The petitioner applied on 17.2.1976 for exchange of its Bhumidhari and with the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha. A report was called for. The Gaon Sabha also passed a resolution on 24.2.1976, agreeing to the proposal of the petitioner. The SubDivisional Officer, Ghaziabad vide order dated 4.11.1976 allowed the exchange under the provisions of section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. 1 of 1951). The SubDivisional Qfficer recorded specific finding that valuation of both the land sought to be exchanged was the same. It was further recorded that the land of Gaon Sabha was already in illegal possession of certain persons, which was being sought to be taken by the petitioner. This order of the SubDivisional Officer allowing the exchange became final as no appeal or revision was filed by any of the parties.

Subsequently, it appears that an application was filed by new Pradhan before the Consolidation Officer that the exchange has been effected during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings and, therefore, was void. This application was filed on the ground that no permission had been taken under section 5(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) and further that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to allow such exchange in view of the fact that consolidation operation had commenced and, therefore, any proceeding which was pending was liable to be abated and no new application could have been filed after the notification under section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act had been issued. It also took an objection that exchange could have been permitted only by the Consolidation Authorities under section 53 of the U.P.C.H. Act. On the said application the Consolidation Officer referred the matter to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who vide order dated 5.1.1979 allowed the same and directed that the possession as existed prior to the order of exchange be restored. The petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order against which the present writ petition was filed in the year 1979 and an interim order was granted on 6.9.1979. The effect is that for the last more than 32 years the exchange as directed by the SubDivisional Officer on 4.11.1976 has continued and the parties have been in possession of the land as per the exchange order.

Sri Namwar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision of the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, that the SubDivisional Officer has no authority to pass order of exchange with regard to the land which fell within the Consolidation operations and secondly the revision was barred by time as sufficient explanation had not been given to condone the delay. He has further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed an error firstly in holding that the SubDivisional Officer had no jurisdiction inasmuch as under the U.P.C.H. Act there was no specific provision permitting the exchange. Section 53 of the U.P.C.H. Act had no application to exchange of land as it only related to chak and not to any holding. Second submission is that the delay had been duly explained. Even otherwise it is well settled that the rights of the parties should be adjudicated on merits rather than to scuttle on technicalities.

Without going into the merits of the submissions in my opinion once the SubDivisional Officer had found that the exchange did not adversely affect the Gaon Sabha, rather it benefited the Gaon Sabha as it was getting possession of vacant land belonging to the petitioner and instead its land which was in possession of trespassers was going to the petitioner, the consolidation authorities erred in holding that the exchange was void. Further, there was an existing resolution of the Gaon Sabha with regard to the exchange in which the Pradhan had participated. The Pradhan is not the Gaon Sabha but is the Chairman of the Gaon Sabha which comprises of elected members. It is not open to the Pradhan to file objection against resolution of the Gaon Sabha which was otherwise in accordance with law and in which all the members had participated. It was not open to the Pradhan or the Gaon Sabha to go against its own resolution on mere technicalities on the change of guards. There is no finding by any of the authorities that the resolution of the Gaon Sabha was not in accordance with law. The exchange has not been challenged on merits but only on technicalities of prior permission and lack of jurisdiction. If such somersault is permitted, then all the resolutions of Gaon Sabha can be reopened and challenged at the whims of the Pradhan coming in subsequently, and for ulterior motives. Further, the petitioner had continued in possession for more than three decades and by now has developed the land and its nature had been changed. Therefore, nothing fruitful would be served by dismissing the writ petition at this stage and allowing the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to be implemented.

In view of the reasons stated above the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation cannot be sustained and they are accordingly set aside. The order passed by the SubDivisional Officer on 4.11.1976 will stand as it is and the exchange effected under it is confirmed.

The writ petition is allowed as above.