Allowed

Bindeswari Prasad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2022WRIB/2882/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought expeditious disposal of a representation regarding land records in Village Oran. Court held that cancellation of consolidation notification does not negate liability to implement final orders. Petitioner directed to obtain fresh revenue extract.

What did the court decide?

Directed District Magistrate/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda to ensure implementation of order dated 27.06.1996 and issue fresh Khatauni within two months.

Bindeswari Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2882 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Bindeswari Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

Instant writ petition has been filed beseeching expeditious disposal of representation dated 01.08.2022 (Annexure-2) which is pending consideration before the District Magistrate/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the village Oran was notified under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act') by notification promulgated on 05.05.1972. Subsequently, aforesaid notification was cancelled by notification dated 07.06.2016 issued under Section 6(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act. In paragraphs no. 6, 7 & 11 of the petition it is stated that the Consolidation Officer has passed the order dated 29.5.77 in Case No. 6401+6395 under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act which had never been challenged and became final between the parties. It is submitted that the aforesaid order was passed during consolidation operation before its cancellation wherein village/unit cease to be under consolidation operation by virtue of notification dated 07.06.2016 under Section 6(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act. Despite repeated request made by the petitioner, till date authorities concerned are not complying with the order dated 27.06.1996 which became final between the parties. To the best knowledge of the petitioner, till date, aforesaid order has not been challenged before any competent court. It is further submitted that the consolidation authorities are under legal obligation to implement the order dated 27.06.1996 under the provisions as enunciated under Section 6(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in Writ-B No. 696 of 2021 (Shankar Lal vs. State of U.P. & Others).

¶8

In the case of Shankar Lal vs State of U.P. and others (Supra), after considering several judgments and Government notification dated 12.12.2014, this Court has already held that the effect of cancellation of the notification under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act is that, subject to the final orders passed regarding correction of the record, the area ceases to be under consolidation operations. Relevant paragraphs no. 6, 7, 8 and 14 of the aforesaid judgment are being reproduced below :-

¶9

"6. Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act empowers the State Government to cancel the notification issued under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act by which particular area or unit brought under the consolidation operation. The consequential effect of the cancellation of notification is enunciated under sub-Section 2 of Section 6 of the U.P.C.H. Act which denotes that, from the date of cancellation of the notification area/unit shall ceased to be under consolidation operation subject to final orders passed with regard to

¶10

correction of records.

¶11

To avert any complications due to the cancellation of the notification promulgated under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act, Legislation has made the proviso under Section 6(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. Phrase "subject to the final orders relating to the correction of land records" as used u/s 6(2) of U.P.C.H. Act explicitly connotes wider effect of notification u/s 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. After cancellation of notification, land records, including basic year entries should be corrected in accordance with the orders, passed during the consolidation proceedings, which have attained the finality.

¶12

Provisions u/s 6(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, left no room for doubt that final orders, if any, passed during the consolidation proceeding, on or before the cancellation of notification as provided u/s 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act, shall be given effect to the revenue records and, accordingly, final revenue records shall be maintained after cessation of the area to be under consolidation operations.

¶13

In this view of matter, Consolidation authorities are under legal obligation to correct the revenue record after the cancellation of the notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act in accordance with the final orders which were passed and attained finality on or before the cancellation of notification as mentioned under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. Present matter relates to the consequential effect of the cancellation of the notification wherein final order had already been passed to correct the revenue record. Therefore, petitioner has legal right to get his name recorded under the provisions of Section 6(2) of U.P.C.H. Act."

¶14

It is further submitted that in a similar matter, this Court has passed order dated 29.09.2021 in Writ B No.1895 of 2020 (Ram Deo and another vs. State of U.P. & Ors).

¶15

In this conspectus as above, claim of the petitioners to get their names recorded in the Revenue Record in pursuance of the final order as mentioned in paragraph nos. 6, 7 & 11 of the writ petition, after notification under Section 6(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act, is justified in the eyes of law and the authorities concerned are under legal obligation to implement the said order passed by the competent Court, which became final between the parties.

¶16

As such, present writ petition is allowed with a direction to the District Magistrate/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda (respondent no.2) to ensure the implementation of the order dated 27.06.1996, as mentioned in paragraph nos. 6, 7 and 11 of this writ petition, in the light of the provisions as enunciated under Section 6(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act and, accordingly, issue the extract of fresh Khatauni with respect to the land in question situated in Village-Oran, Tehsil-Artara, District-Banda, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order along with fresh representation, which shall be moved by the petitioners within a period of three weeks from today.

¶17

Order Date :- 19.11.2022 SS

¶18

Digitally signed by SURENDAR SINGH NARANG Date: 2022.11.21 16:01:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bindeswari Prasad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindeswari Prasad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sita Ram Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Chandra Bhushan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt Pooja Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Baljeet Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaya Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Devi (Deceased) and 4 Others Vs Consolidation Officer and Others