The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that cancelled all chak allotment arrangements due to large-scale irregularities and illegalities committed during consolidation operations.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 11
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 23771 of 2010
Petitioner :- Smt. Vimla Devi Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K. Vaish,B. Malik Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh,Raja Ram Kushwaha,Rajesh Singh Rathore,Sanjay Kumar
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 5. The order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Bareilly, i.e respondent no.2 is under challenge in the present writ petition. The aforesaid is a common order passed in multiple revisions filed by different tenure holders ventilating their grievances against different orders passed by subordinate consolidation authorities.
A perusal of the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by respondent no.2 shows that it was brought to the notice of respondent no.2 by the tenure holders/revisionists that during the consolidation operations held in the Village, the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had committed many irregularities while amending the arrangement of Chaks proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It was also brought to the notice of respondent no.2 that during the consolidation proceedings in the Village, the total area of the original holdings of more than 107 tenure holders was reduced by more than 25% by the Consolidation Officer/Settlement Officer of Consolidation while amending the proposal made by Assistant Consolidation Officer thereby illegally benefiting many tenure holders and causing undue loss to the tenure holders whose land area had been reduced by more than 25%. It was also brought to the notice of respondent no.2 that there were many fradulent duplicate entries so far as allotment of chaks was concerned, and in many cases Abadi lands of the tenure holders had been included in Chak allotment proceedings. Further, from the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by respondent no.2, it would also be evident that
many forged entries recording the name of certain persons as lease holders of Gaon Sabha land came to the notice of respondent no.2 and the said forged entries in the revenue entries were legalised by different orders passed by the Consolidation Officer/Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In his order dated 10.12.2009, respondent no.2 has also recorded the fact that the land deducted as contributions from holdings of tenure holders for public purposes and for being used by the Gaon Sabha, were scaterred in the Village and were not consolidated which would make it impossible for the Gaon Sabha to utilise the said land for public purposes.
In view of the aforesaid findings regarding irregularities and illegalities committed on large scale by Subordinate Consolidation Authorities, the respondent no.2 passed an order cancelling all the orders passed by Consolidation Officer/Settlement Officer of Consolidation amending the allotment of chaks as it would not have been administratively possible for respondent no.2 to consider each case separately because alteration of a single chak could result in alteration in arrangements of many others Chaks and would have thus unnecessary delayed the culmination of consolidation proceedings. The respondent no.2, while cancelling all the orders of Consolidation/Settlement Officer of Consolidation amending the allotment of chaks, remitted back the records to the Consolidation Officer to consider all the matters again and pass fresh orders after giving opportunity of hearing to all chak holders and keeping in view the observations made by respondent no.2 in his impugned order dated 10.12.2009.
It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that order dated 10.12.2009 passed by respondent no. 2 is without jurisdiction in as much as the respondent no.2 had no power to pass a general order cancelling all the arrangements made by the Subordinate Consolidation Authorities relating to Chak allotment through different orders passed by the Consolidation Officer/Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the respondent no.2 should have decided the matters individually and
separately.
I am unable to agree with the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner. The contents of the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by respondent no.2, previously narrated in detail, would show that the impugned direction passed by respondent no.2 was occasioned due to major irregularities/illegalities having been committed by the Subordinate Consolidation Authorities in allotment of Chaks. The said illegalities and irregularities, by their very nature, tend to benefit various unscrupulous elements amongst the tenure holders in the Village and cause unnecessary loss to small tenure holders as well as Gaon Sabha which is the custodian of public land gained as a result of contributions deducted from the holdings of the tenure holders. From the nature and extent of the irregularities/illegalities committed by the Subordinate Consolidation Authorities as narrated by the respondent no.2 in his order dated 10.12.2009, it is evident that it would not have been practically possible for respondent no.2 to consider each matter separately and individually as setting aside a single order of a Subordinate Consolidation Authority would have resulted in consequential alteration of many other chaks.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by respondent no.2. It is not a fit case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.4.2018 IB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation had jurisdiction to pass a general order cancelling all chak allotment arrangements due to widespread irregularities.
Whether the impugned order was without jurisdiction or perversely applied Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the writ petition filed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation lacks merit.
Smt. Vimla Devi
The State Of U.P.
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
