Valistar Singh and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

The Petitioners have come up against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.4.2011 contending that the proceedings under reference ought not to have been undertaken as against the original order of the Consolidation Officer an appeal is still pending.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the action taken u/s 48(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ''the U.P.C.H. Act'') was unjustified for expunging the name of the Petitioners and is without jurisdiction.

Having perused the records, it appears that the Petitioners claim that they have exchanged the land from the Forest Department presumably under the provisions of Section 161 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ''the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act).

It is further contended that the said exchange having become final, the Petitioners'' possession now cannot be altered nor they can be dislodged from their plots.

The aforesaid position cannot be sustained in law, inasmuch as, Section 161 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which is quoted hereinafter, does not permit any such exchange except with the permission of the competent authority:

Exchange.--(1) A bhumidhar [* * *] may exchange with-(a) any other bhumidhar [* * *] land held by him; or (b) any [Gaon Sabha] or local authority, lands for the time being vested in it u/s 117 [* * * ]:

Provided that No. exchange shall be made except with the permission of an Assistant Collector who shall refuse permission if the difference between the rental value of land given in exchange and of land received in exchange calculated at hereditary rates is more than 10 per cent of the lower rental value.

(1-A) Where the Assistant Collector permits exchange he shall also order the relevant annual registers to be corrected accordingly.

(2) On exchange made in accordance with Sub-section (1) they shall have the same rights in the land so received in exchange as they had in the land given exchange.

In the instant case, there is nothing on record to indicate that any such permission was granted by the competent authority as defined u/s 161 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, therefore, the provision of Section 161 cannot be invoked.

So far as, the consolidation proceedings are concerned, Section 19-A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act makes a provision for allotment of State land in the manner provided therein if the land has been resumed and subjected to proceedings u/s 117 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

In the instant case, No. such proceedings have either been undertaken nor is there any material on record to indicate that such proceedings were permissible and have been undertaken under the U.P.C.H. Act.

Under these circumstances, the order impugned herein on merits cannot be faulted with.

The contention of the Petitioners is that the appeal is still pending does not hold water, inasmuch as, the proceedings u/s 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act can be undertaken as the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wide powers keeping in view the provisions of Section 44-A of the U.P.C.H. Act and the various decisions of this Court and the Apex Court.

The Petitioners have not been able to place any material so as to justify their alleged exchange.

There is No. merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.