Dismissed

Surendra Bahadur Singh and Others v. Chakbandi Aayukt U.P. Saptam Tal Indra Bhawan, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2024/382/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judge Manish Kumar dismissed a writ petition challenging the publication of consolidation documents. The court held that Section 52(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 protects pending objectors rights, allowing consolidation operations to proceed despite unresolved objections.

What did the court decide?

None. The petition seeking direction to restrain publication of consolidation documents was dismissed.

Surendra Bahadur Singh and Others Vs Chakbandi Aayukt… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29240

¶2

A.F.R.

¶3

Court No. - 18

¶4

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 382 of 2024

¶5

Petitioner :- Surendra Bahadur Singh And Others Respondent :- Chakbandi Aayukt U.P. Saptam Tal Indra Bhawan, Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.

¶8

The present writ petition has been preferred for issuing direction to the Consolidation OfÏcer, District Amethi, not to make any notification/publication of Section 10, Section 22 and Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1953) and to restrain the Consolidation OfÏcer (C.O) to prepare the final documents with a further prayer that till the decision in the revision/Review, no publication shall be made under Section 10 , 19, 29 and 23 of the Act, 1953.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the petitioners inherited the property of his maternal grandparents (after the demise of their maternal grandfather in the year 1976 and maternal grandmother in the year 1986). A notification has been issued under Section 4A(2), against which the petitioners have filed an objection under Section 9A(2) of the Act, 1953. The objection of the petitioners was not decided by the Consolidation OfÏcer, and the petitioners had no other option except to approach this Court by filing writ petition No. 1204 of 2022, (Surendra Bahadur Singh versus District Magistrate District Amethi and others). The said writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 26.04.2022, with a direction to respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the pending objections of the petitioners as early as possible. Despite the direction of this Court, the objections of the petitioners are still pending before the Consolidation OfÏcer.

¶10

It is further submitted that without deciding the objections of the petitioners filed under Section 9A(2) of the Act, 1953, the notification has been issued under Sections 10, 20 and 23 of the Act, 1953 and submitted the final documents for the purposes of publication under Section 52. The said action on the part of Consolidation OfÏcer i.e. respondent no. 2 is against the statutory

¶11

provisions wherein it has been provided that after deciding all the objections, the publication be made under Sections 10, 20 and 23 and forward the final documents for the purpose of publication under Section 52 of the Act, 1953.

¶12

It is further submitted that after the publication under Section 52, the consolidation operations will be closed without deciding the objections of the petitioners which will affect the legal right of the petitioners as provided under the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

¶13

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that by mere pendency of the objection of the petitioner, the notification/publication under Section 52 cannot be stopped for the reason that the rights of the petitioners are protected under Sub-Section 2 of Section 52 of the Act, 1953 read with Rule 109 (A)(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred as Rules, 1954).

¶14

After hearing learned counsel for parties, going through the records of the case, the objections regarding title of the land have been filed by petitioners under Section 9A(2) of the Act, 1953. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner that as per the provisions of the act, particularly Section 10, wherein it has been provided that the Annual Register shall be revised on the basis of the orders passed under Sub-Section 2 of Section 9A which has not been decided yet, so any consequential proceedings by making publication under Section 10, 20 and 23 will deprive the petitioner of his lawful claim is not tenable and acceptable as per Sub-Section 2 of Section 52 of the Act, 1953, read with Rule 109 (A)(1) Rules, 1954.

¶15

For convenience, Section 52(2) of the Act, 1953 and Rules 109 (A)(1) of Rules, 1954 are quoted herein below:-

¶16

'Section 52(2) of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953:- Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (1), any order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction in cases of writs filed under the provision of the Constitution of India, or in cases or proceedings pending under this Act on the date of issue of the notification under sub-section (1), shall be given effect to by such authorities, as may be prescribed and the consolidation operation shall, for that purpose, be deemed to have not been closed.

¶17

Rule 109 (A)(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954:- Orders passed in cases covered by subsection (2) of Section 52 shall be given effect to by the consolidation authorities, authorised in this behalf under sub-section (2) of Section 42. In case there be no such authority the Assistant Collector, incharge of the subdivision, the Tahsildar, the Naib-Tahsildar, the Supervisor kanungo, and the Lekhpal of the area to which the case relates shall, respectively, perform the functions and

¶18

discharge the duties of the Settlement OfÏcer, Consolidation, Consolidation OfÏcer, the Assistant Consolidation OfÏcer, the Consolidator and the Consolidation Lekhpal respectively for the purpose of giving effect to the orders aforesaid.'

¶19

From the conjoint reading of the section and the rule as quoted above, the position as far as the rights of the petitioners, which is very clear that even after the publication under Section 52 for closing the consolidation operations in the village will not be affected as Sub-Section 2 of Section 52 of the Act, 1953 provides that in cases or proceedings pending under this Act on the date of issuance of the notification under Sub-Section 1 shall be given effect to by such authorities as may be prescribed and the consolidation operation shall, for the purposes be deemed to have not been closed and Rule 109A(1) provides the authorities who shall give effect to the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities.

¶20

The rights of the petitioners are protected under the statute itself and mere pendency of the objections of the petitioners under Section 9A(2) of the Act, 1953 will not come in the way of issuing a notification under Section 52(1) of the Act, 1953 regarding closing of the consolidation operations in the village or the villages and by notification under Section 52 of the Act, 1953 or publication under Sections 10, 20, 23 will not prejudice any of the rights of the petitioner as already mentioned above. The apprehension of the petitioners that publication under Section 10, Section 20, Section 23 and Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 would adversely affect the rights, has no basis as sufÏcient protection in regard to the pending cases under Section 52(2) of the Act, 1953 read with Rule 109A(1) of the Rules, 1954.

¶21

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed .

¶22

Order Date :- 10.4.2024 DiVYa

¶23

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surendra Bahadur Singh and Others v. Chakbandi Aayukt U.P. Saptam Tal Indra Bhawan, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Bahadur Singh and Others v. Chakbandi Aayukt U.P. Saptam Tal Indra Bhawan, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Saraswati Devi and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Dheeraj Singh and 2 Others Vs Ahibaran Singh and 3 Others

Vinay Kumar Tiwari and Another Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Thru.Its President and 14 Others

Ram Saran Vs Additional Commissioner J Lucknow and Others

Bhaiyuddin and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Home Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Mohammad Istiyaq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko and 12 Others