Dismissed

Shiv Sampat Shukla v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2024WRIB/2505/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged orders rejecting his belated restoration application regarding land plots reserved for general abadi after village denotification. The court found the Consolidation Officer lacked jurisdiction to alter final consolidated records post-denotification and dismissed the writ petition, rejecting claims of prejudice or miscarriage of justice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Shiv Sampat Shukla vs State of Up and 4 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:121676

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2505 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shiv Sampat Shukla Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.C.Tripathi,Vindhya Vashini Prasad Rai

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- Achal Singh,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State respondents as well as learned counsel for the gaon sabha (respondent no.5).

¶8

The grievance of the petitioner is that Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 6.12.2022, has illegally recalled the previous order dated 11.5.2022 on the restoration application filed on behalf of the gaon sabha. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'SOC') and the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'DDC') have illegally affirmed the order dated 6.12.2022.

¶9

Facts culled out from the record are that dispute relates to new plot No. 1034 (old plot No. 1206 measuring area 0.088 hectares and plot No. 1207 measuring area 0.088 hectares). In basic consolidation record aforesaid plots in question were recorded in name of Bramhadeen and others. At the time of preparing statement of principles, plot in dispute were reserved for general abadi. In provisional consolidation scheme, Shiv Prasad (father of the present petitioner) was proposed chak No.410 over plot no.663 Min., 664 Min. etc. totalling 9 plots measuring area 1.163 hectares. The village was denotified under Section 52(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'UPCH Act') by a notification dated 4.5.2001 (mentioned as 14.5.2001 in DDC order). At a highly belated stage, the present petitioner has moved a restoration application dated 11.12.2021 against the order 25.10.1997, however, copy of the order dated 25.10.1997 has not been filed. In the restoration application, the petitioner came with the plea that plot nos.1206 and 1207 were given to his father through a gift deed, therefore, same may be allotted in his chak no.410. The Consolidation Officer, on the basis of the report

¶10

submitted by Consolidator, Manikpur, has passed an order dated 11.5.2022 whereby plot nos.1206 and 1207 (new plot no.1034) were alotted in the chak of the petitioner i.e. chak no.410 and plot no.663/2, which was part of chak no.410, had been reserved for general abadi. Having been dissatisfied with the order dated 11.5.2022, a recall application dated 28.7.2022 was filed on behalf of the gaon sahba. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 6.12.2022, has allowed the restoration application and recalled the previous order dated 11.5.2022, and, simultaneously, rejected the restoration application dated 11.12.2021 moved by petitioner. Having been aggrieved with the order dated 6.12.2022, the petitioner has preferred an appeal. The SOC, vide order dated 28.11.2023, has dismissed the appeal. The DDC, on revision being filed on behalf of the petitioner, has dismissed the same by the order impugned dated 28.3.2024. Thus orders passed by all three consolidation courts are under challenge before this court.

¶11

Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is manifested that in the basic consolidation records, plots in question were recorded in the name of Brahmadin and others, however, at the time of the preparation of the statement of principles under Section 8 A of UPCH Act said plots were reserved for general abadi. In final consolidation record said entry became final and the village was denotified by notification dated 4.5.2001. The Consolidation Officer, while deciding the restoration application moved by petitioner vide order dated 11.5.2022, has modified the chak of the petitioner viz. chak no.410 and the plots in question which were reserved for the general abadi. Consequently, plot no.663/2 which was part of chak no.410 has been reserved for the general abadi, and in lieu thereof plot no.1206 and 1207, which were reserved for the general abadi, has been allotted in the chak of petitioner. Surprisingly, the contradictory observation has been made by the Consolidation Officer that the previous order dated 25.10.1997, against which the restoration application has been filed would remain standing. At a later stage, the Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 16.12.2022, has recalled the previous order dated 11.5.2022 and rejected the restoration application dated 11.12.2021. While passing the order dated 6.12.2022, the Consolidation Officer has given a categorical finding that the order dated 25.10.1997, against which restoration application has been filed, has no concern with chak no.410 and the general abadi. No modification was made by the said order in the chak of the petitioner and the general abadi. During the consolidation operation till the date of denotification i.e. 4.5.2001, no objection

¶12

was raised from the petitioner or his father claiming their right and title over the plot nos.1206 and 1207.

¶13

In this view of the matter, the petitioner has attempted for the first time to modified his chak after denotification under section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act, which has already attained finality by promulgation of notification dated 4.5.2001. The SOC and the DDC, while affirming the order dated 6.12.2022 passed by Consolidation Officer, have given a categorical finding that intending to change the statement of principles no specific objection was filed under Section 9B(1) of UPCH Act. Thus, at a later stage, the statement of principles wherein plots in question are reserved for general abadi can not be disturbed. The Consolidation Officer, while passing the order dated 11.5.2022, has exceed its jurisdiction so vested in it by law. After denotification under Section 52 of UPCH Act, the Consolidation Officer has inherently lacked jurisdiction to make any change in the chak allotted to the parties or in the statement of principles, which has attained finality by virtue of denotification under Section 52 of the UPCH Act. Concurrent findings of fact returned by all the three consolidation courts has not been refuted by the petitioner in the writ petition.

¶14

There is nothing on the record to demonstrate as to how the petitioner was prejudiced with the order dated 25.10.1997 which has been assailed by way of moving a restoration application dated 11.12.2021. It appears that after denotification petitioner has played mischief to get benefit over the gaon sabha property which is a public utility land.

¶15

In this conspectus, as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to entertain the instant writ petition and interfere in the order passed by all the three consolidation courts whereby highly belated restoration application moved on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected. There is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the order impugned passed by all the three consolidation courts so as to warrant the indulgence of this court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate as to how the present petitioner is prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing a miscarriage of justice to him, owing to the order under challenge.

¶16

Resultantly, the instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no orders as to the costs.

¶17

Order Date :- 30.7.2024/vkg

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiv Sampat Shukla v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Sampat Shukla v. State of Up and 4 Others

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

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar vs State of Up and 6 Others

Lajjavati Devi vs State of Up and 2 Others

Meena Devi vs Deputy Director of Consolidation District Moradabad and 7 Others

Jagdish Singh vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Bilkish @ Balkish vs State of Up and 7 Others

Subhash Chand vs State of Up and 4 Others