# Abodh Narain v. The D.D.C., Farrukhabad and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 611
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-07-09
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8175 of 1993
- **Bench:** Shishir Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abodh-narain-v-the-d-d-c-farrukhabad-and-others-41663
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Sri Sanjeev Trivedi
Sri Brijesh Sahai
Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava
S.C

U.P.
consolidation
of
Holdings
ActSection 21 (3) read with Consolidation
Rules-Rule 24 (d)-Spot Inspection-Chak
allotment-plot No.88 area 0.38 acre
situated
adjacent
to
road-pacca
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
construction surrounded with boundary
wall out of 0.38 Acre only 0.06 acre
allotted ignoring the claim of petitionerapplication
for
spot
inspection
also
rejected by the consolidation authority
without
discussion
of
hardship
of
petitioner-and
the
reasons
for
not
allotting major position of plot no. 88held-order not sustainable-direction to
decide
as
fresh
in
the
light
of
observation within period of 3 months.

Held: Para 6 & 7

After hearing learned counsel for parties
and after perusal of record, it is clear
that original holding of petitioner was
Ghata No. 88 and from perusal of Form
23, it is clear that total areas was 0.38
acre. Admittedly that Ghata number is on
the main road and therefore, if there was
a demand by petitioner, to that effect to
allot major portion of that original
holding
that
should
have
been
considered
by
the
consolidation
authorities.
Though
the
settlement
officer (consolidation) in the appeal has
observed such and has given a finding
but in spite of the aforesaid fact, has
given only 0.06 acres on the Ghata No.

## Text

2 All] Abodh Narain V. The D.D.C., Farrukhabad and others
611
filed before the civil court for setting
aside the award.

75. Thus, the judgment in Pallav
Sheth (supra), in our view, cannot be
said to be an authority on the question as
to whether the provisions of Section 5 of
Act 1963 would have application where
the contempt proceedings are initiated
after expiry of the period of one year from
the date of alleged contempt that is
Section 20 of Act 1971. The above
judgment
is
an
authority
for
the
proposition that contempt proceedings
would be deemed to have been initiated
by the Court when (1) an application is
filed before the Court by an individual for
bringing to its notice the disobedience or
defiance of its order and requesting for
punishing the contemner for committing
contempt of the Court; (2) in a matter of
criminal contempt when an application is
moved before the Advocate General or
when the Court permits to move before it
directly; (3) in the matter of contempt of
subordinate court when reference is made
by the subordinate court; and (4) in the
matter of suo motu action, when the
notice is issued by the Court. The Apex
Court said that if the above actions are
taken within one year from the date,
contempt is alleged to have been
committed, the application would be
deemed to be within the time prescribed
under Section 20 of Act, 1971. It also says
where the defiance or disobedience could
not come to the knowledge of the
applicant or the Court due to fraud played
by the contemnor, the date of knowledge
shall be treated to be the date when
contempt is alleged to have been
committed.

76. We, therefore, answer both the
questions referred by the Hon'ble Single
Judge in negative and hold that for the
purpose of Section 20 of Act 1971, the
Act 1963 and its provisions (exceptSection
17)
have
no
application
whatsoever. The law laid down by the
Apex Court in Pallav Sheth (supra) does
not make Section 5 of Act 1963
applicable and would not confer power
upon the Court to condone or waive delay
where proceedings of contempt are sought
to be initiated under Act 1971 after one
year from the date when the contempt is
alleged to have been committed.

77. Let the record of this matter be
placed before the Hon'ble Single Judge
for proceedings with the matter further in
accordance with law.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8175 of 1993

Abodh Narain

...Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh and others
...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.C. Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sanjeev Trivedi
Sri Brijesh Sahai
Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava
S.C

U.P.
consolidation
of
Holdings
ActSection 21 (3) read with Consolidation
Rules-Rule 24 (d)-Spot Inspection-Chak
allotment-plot No.88 area 0.38 acre
situated
adjacent
to
road-pacca
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
construction surrounded with boundary
wall out of 0.38 Acre only 0.06 acre
allotted ignoring the claim of petitionerapplication
for
spot
inspection
also
rejected by the consolidation authority
without
discussion
of
hardship
of
petitioner-and
the
reasons
for
not
allotting major position of plot no. 88held-order not sustainable-direction to
decide
as
fresh
in
the
light
of
observation within period of 3 months.

Held: Para 6 & 7

After hearing learned counsel for parties
and after perusal of record, it is clear
that original holding of petitioner was
Ghata No. 88 and from perusal of Form
23, it is clear that total areas was 0.38
acre. Admittedly that Ghata number is on
the main road and therefore, if there was
a demand by petitioner, to that effect to
allot major portion of that original
holding
that
should
have
been
considered
by
the
consolidation
authorities.
Though
the
settlement
officer (consolidation) in the appeal has
observed such and has given a finding
but in spite of the aforesaid fact, has
given only 0.06 acres on the Ghata No.
88. The Deputy Director of Consolidation
in spit of application submitted by
petitioner for spot inspection regarding
verification has rejected the claim of
petitioner and has not made any spot
inspection.

In view of aforesaid fact and on the basis
of judgment cited by learned counsel for
petitioner, I am of opinion that orders
passed
by
respondents
are
not
sustainable
in
law
and
is
hereby
quashed.
Case law discussed:
2006 (101) R.D. 671, 1996 (Supplement) R.D.
559.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for
petitioner,
learned
counsel
for
respondents
and
learned
Standing
Counsel.

2. This writ petition has been filed
for quashing the order dated 1.12.1991
(Annexure 9 to writ petition) passed by
respondent No. 1. Further, order dated
5.8.1987 (Annexure 4 to writ petition)
passed by respondent No. 2 and order
dated 20.10.1986 (Annexure 1 to writ
petition) passed by respondent No.3.

3. It appears that petitioner is a sole
tenant of original Plot No. 88 area 0.38
acre situated on G.T. Road and in
adjoining to U.P. Tourist Bunglow. The
plot is surrounded by pucca boundary
wall. During consolidation operation,
petitioner was assured that he will be
given the said plot. An objection to that
effect was filed by petitioner under
Section 20 of the Act but the said
objection was rejected vide its order dated
20.10.1986 by a non-speaking and nonreasoned order. Then petitioner filed an
appeal. Appellate Court though has held
that original holding of petitioner is plot
No. 88, therefore, that particular plot be
allotted according to Form 23 but at the
time of amendment, only 0.06 acre was
allotted in Plot No. 88 and similar area
has been allotted to respondents though it
does not belong to respondents. Petitioner
has also submitted an application for spot
inspection but that was not done.
Aggrieved by aforesaid order, petitioner
filed a revision. Revisional Court in spite
of fact that petitioner has made an
application for spot inspection and this
fact has been mentioned by revisional
court, has held that there is no necessity to
increase the area according to valuation
and the area allotted during consolidation
operation, is correct. Though, nothing has
been recorded by Deputy Director of
2 All] Abodh Narain V. The D.D.C., Farrukhabad and others
613
Consolidation that from Ghatta Section 88
some area has been reduced and petitioner
has been adjusted in his original holding
at Ghata No. 94. In such situation, there is
no necessity to any amendment.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that consolidation authorities are
bound to record reason, if they refuses,
demand made by a person to allot land of
his original holding, which stood by the
road side. A reasoned order to that effect
be passed by not accepting the request
and demand made by the effected person.
In the present case also, petitioner has
made an application for spot inspection
before the appellate court as well as
before the Revisional court but without
making
spot
inspection,
claim
of
petitioner has been rejected. Reliance has
been placed upon a judgment of this
Court in Raja Ram (Dead) through Lrs.
Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Mirzapur and others reported in 2006
(101) R.D. 671. Placing reliance upon the
aforesaid judgement learned counsel for
petitioner has relied upon para 6 of the
said judgement. The same is quoted
below:-

"6. Reliance has been placed on
various decisions of this Court, Chhedi
Lal v. Deputy Director, Consolidation
and others. This Court had ruled that the
guidelines contained in the Government
Order dated 26.5.1981 are to be strictly
adhered to as it has been enacted in
26.5.1981 are to be strictly adhered to as
it has been enacted in confirmation and to
give effect to the intention of the Act and
the provisions of section 19. I have
perused the said Government Order and
on a close examination of the orders of
the consolidation authorities, impugned in
the writ petition, I am satisfied that the
orders
have
not
been
passed
in
accordance
with
law
and
without
considering the specific objection. This
Court had set aside the order of the
consolidation authorities on the ground
that no reasons were recorded for
declining to allot the area demanded by
the petitioner of his original holding,
which stood by the road side. In absence
or any valid reason to decline the request
of the petitioner, the order was held to be
unsustainable in law and consequently
was set aside. In another writ petition,
Nathunee and others v. Deputy Director
of Consolidation Ghazipur and another,
the Court had quashed the order of the
Consolidation authority as the impugned
orders in the said writ petition were
without application of mind and without
assigning any appropriate reason and
considerint the comparative hardship,
which was to be faced by the parties. The
authorities having failed to take into
consideration this aspect, the order stood
vitiated in law. Similar view has been
expressed in the case of Rajendra Singh
and others Vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation and others. For a ready
reference, paragraph 8 of the said
judgment is quoted below:-

"A perusal of the impugned order of
the Deputy Director of Consolidation
goes to show that no reason has been
recorded by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation. The only reason recorded
for allowing the revision is hat claim
made by the revisionists (respondents
herein) is genuine. Apart from that there
is no discussion by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation about the claim of the
parties nor any other reason has been
given. The specific objection of the
petitioners that order of settlement
Officer, Consolidation is based on the
basis of compromise between the parties,
though has been noted by the Deputy
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
Director of Consolidation but no finding
has been returned on the said issue. It
was incumbent upon him to have
considered the fact whether the order of
the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was
based on compromise between the parties
or not. He was also reluired considering
the case of the petitioners before reaching
to any conclusion. A perusal of the
judgement also indicates that no spot
inspection was done by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation. The allegation
of the contesting respondents that they
have been allotted a multi-cornered chak
could have been easily verified by the
Deputy Director of consolidation by
making a spot inspection which he failed
to do so."

5. Further decision has been relied
upon by learned counsel for petitioner in
Rajendra Prasad Shukla Vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation reported in
1996 (Supplement) R.D. 559. It has been
held that in case an application for spot
inspection is made, it is incumbent on the
part of the consolidation authority to
make an spot inspection. If that has not
been done, the order is liable to be
quashed. Placing reliance upon the
aforesaid judgement learned counsel for
petitioner submits that spot inspection by
consolidation authorities is must in case
application has been filed. If the spot
inspection has not been made that is
breach of universal principles and in
violation of Section 21 (3) and Rule 24
(d) of the Act. In such situation, learned
counsel for petitioner submits that orders
passed by respondents is liable to be
quashed.

6. After hearing learned counsel for
parties and after perusal of record, it is
clear that original holding of petitioner
was Ghata No. 88 and from perusal of
Form 23, it is clear that total areas was
0.38 acre. Admittedly that Ghata number
is on the main road and therefore, if there
was a demand by petitioner, to that effect
to allot major portion of that original
holding that should have been considered
by the consolidation authorities. Though
the settlement officer (consolidation) in
the appeal has observed such and has
given a finding but in spite of the
aforesaid fact, has given only 0.06 acres
on the Ghata No. 88. The Deputy Director
of Consolidation in spit of application
submitted by petitioner for spot inspection
regarding verification has rejected the
claim of petitioner and has not made any
spot inspection.

7. In view of aforesaid fact and on
the basis of judgment cited by learned
counsel for petitioner, I am of opinion that
orders passed by respondents are not
sustainable in law and is hereby quashed.

8. The writ petition is allowed.
Order dated 1.12.1991 (Annexure 9 to
writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1,
order dated 5.8.1987 ( Annexure 4 to writ
petition) passed by respondent No. 2 and
order dated 20.10.1986 (Annexure 1 to
writ petition) passed by respondent No.3
are hereby quashed and matter is
remanded back to the consolidation
officer for decision as a fresh in
accordance
with
law
after
giving
opportunity to petitioner.

9. As the matter is very old, it
should be decided within three months
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order.

No order as to costs.
---------
2 All] Amber Kumar Jain V. The State of U.P. and others
615
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20282 of 1990

Amber Kumar Jain

...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.N. Verma
Sri A.N. Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Imposition of Ceiling Act 1960
Section
38-B-Bar
of
subsequent
proceeding-principle
of
resjudicatascope and ambit explained-once the
order passed by appellate authoritybecome final-can not be subjected to
fresh notice for determination of surplus
land-held-proceeding on same ground
not maintainable.
Case law discussed:
2002 (93) R.D. 663, AIR 1999 SC 2264, AIR
2004 SC 2186.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Proceedings for determination and
declaration of surplus land with the
petitioner under U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling of Land Holding Act, 1960 were
initiated. Prescribed Authority, Jansath,
District Muzzafarnagar through order
dated 20.05.1976 held that petitioner
possessed about 23 bighas land as surplus
land. Against the said order, petitioner
filed appeal being Ceiling Appeal No. 780
of 1976. One more appeal was also filed
against the same judgment number of
which appears to be 81 of 1976 . III
Additional District Judge, Muzzafarnagar
allowed
both
the
appeals
through
judgment and order dated 27.09.1976 and
held that petitioner did not possess any
surplus land. It appears that no writ
petition was filed against the judgment
and order dated 27.09.1976.

However
thereafter
fresh
proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner. At the second stage, Prescribed
Authority through order dated 29.04.1988
declared 22 bighas land as surplus almost
on the same grounds on which earlier
order was passed by the Prescribed
Authority, which had been set aside in
appeal.
Against
the
order
dated
29.04.1988, an appeal was again filed
being Appeal No. 11 of 1987-88, which
was allowed on 27.07.1988 and matter
was
remanded
to
the
Prescribed
Authority.
After
remand,
Prescribed
Authority passed order on 18.04.1990
declaring about 21 bighas of land as
surplus land. Said order was passed in
Case No. 1 of 1988-89. Against order
dated 18.04.1990, petitioner filed appeal
being Appeal No. 2 of 1989, which was
allowed in part through judgment and
order dated 25.07.1990. The said orders
have been challenged through this writ
petition. Appellate Court instead of 21
bighas 9 biswas 10 biswancies land,
which had been declared as the surplus
land by the Prescribed Authority, declared
12 bighas and odd land as surplus.
Appellate Court held that from the
statement of Lekhpal, it was clear the Jai
Prakash son of Sukhdarshan Lal was not
doing agriculture and was not having any
agricultural tools or material and was not
residing in the village and that land was
being used by the petitioner. Petitioner