Mohlad vs Roopa And Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

This is a matter arising out of consolidation proceedings. The short question involved in this matter is that during the consolidation proceedings under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the Consolidation Officer has to take into account various factors while he is in the process of consolidating the holdings in a village.

One of the factors which he has to take into consideration is the valuation of land, which is given under Section 9 (1) (a) (iv) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The valuation of land is determined on various factors. It would depend on whether it is irrigated or a non-irrigated land, the fertility of land, its proximity to the road, its approach, etc. are the factors taken into consideration. In the said process, the valuation of a particular land i.e. Plot No. 52 and 53 in village Jhidiyangrant, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar was made at the rate of fifty paise and forty paise, respectively.

The matter ultimately went in the revision where the case of the revisionists (i.e. present respondents before this Court) was that plot no. 52 which was given to him elsewhere should be valued at thirty paise and the increase in value to fifty paise would actually give him lesser area of plot in consolidation.

The argument of the other side i.e. the petitioner before this Court was that the valuation of the said plot has already been done and it has already settled and the challenge to the valuation before the revisional authority is wholly uncalled for. It was also contended that although after consolidation, the area of the land for the revisionist has been reduced but this reduction is less than 25% which is within the permissible limits of the law.

The Deputy Director of Consolidation came to the conclusion that Plot No. 53 was valued at forty paise whereas the adjacent Plot No. 52 is valued at fifty paise, which is not correct and therefore both should be valued to forty paise, and allowed the revision vide order dated 27.07.2006.

Present petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. According to the petitioner valuation of land from fifty paise to forty paise would actually amount to shortening of his area.

Perused the order dated 27.07.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. No reason has been assigned as to why valuation of the land has been decreased from fifty paise to forty paise. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation seems to be arbitrary. Moreover, this valuation aspect should have been considered at the initial stage and it should be interfered in very rare case.

Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order dated 27.07.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar is hereby set aside.