# Bhuleliya and others v. Additional Collector(Land/Revenue)/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and another - **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1120 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2006-05-16 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.26520 of 2006 - **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhuleliya-and-others-v-additional-collector-land-revenue-deputy-director-of-40749 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Sri Rajesh Yadav Sri K.R. Sirohi U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act Section 52-A(1)-Chak Road and Chak Nali-after notification under section 52- can be passed only by the collector and not by the A.D.M./D.D.C.-held-without jurisdiction. Held: Para 8 This Court is of the view that under Section 52-A of the U.P.C.H. Act after notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act, the Collector may, if he is of the opinion that there exists no provision or inadequate provision of Chak Roads or Chak Guls in the unit and shall, if a representation in that behalf by not less than ten per cent of the total number of tenure-holders is made to him within six months of the said commencement, proceed to take action under sub-Section (2), anything to the contrary contained in section 52 notwithstanding. The impugned order was not passed by the Collector, but it was passed by the Additional District Magistrate/Deputy Director of Consolidation. The impugned order is without jurisdiction as such orders could only be passed by the 3 All] Bhuleliya and others V. Addl. Collector (Land/Revenue)/D.D.C. and another 1121 Collector of District if the conditions contained under Section 52-A (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act are fully satisfied. ## Text 1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006 officer's report. Lastly, it can be ---- that it has been held by this court that lesser amount of recovery cannot be said to be a ground for removing a government servant from service unless something further is established against his integrity and conduct. Petitioner has submitted that several other Collection Amins having recovered even lessor amount than the petitioner has been earlier placed under suspension but have been reinstated and therefore on these facts it cannot be said that impugned order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner is in the public interest and petitioner has been established to be dead wood and of no use in the department. 7. Petitioner was retired in the public interest. This expression has been explained in series of judgment. Reference can be made to the judgment given in case of S. Ramachandra Raju V. State of Orissa reported in (1994) Vol. 28, Administrative Tribunal Cases 443 in which Apex Court has held that order of compulsory retirement passed on one adverse entry followed by subsequent report makes the exercise of power arbitrary. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 31.5.2001 passed by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed and petitioner is to get consequential benefits. Petition Allowed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.05.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.26520 of 2006 Bhuleliya and others ...Petitioners Versus Additional Collector(Land/Revenue)/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri A.N. Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Rajesh Yadav Sri K.R. Sirohi U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act Section 52-A(1)-Chak Road and Chak Nali-after notification under section 52- can be passed only by the collector and not by the A.D.M./D.D.C.-held-without jurisdiction. Held: Para 8 This Court is of the view that under Section 52-A of the U.P.C.H. Act after notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act, the Collector may, if he is of the opinion that there exists no provision or inadequate provision of Chak Roads or Chak Guls in the unit and shall, if a representation in that behalf by not less than ten per cent of the total number of tenure-holders is made to him within six months of the said commencement, proceed to take action under sub-Section (2), anything to the contrary contained in section 52 notwithstanding. The impugned order was not passed by the Collector, but it was passed by the Additional District Magistrate/Deputy Director of Consolidation. The impugned order is without jurisdiction as such orders could only be passed by the 3 All] Bhuleliya and others V. Addl. Collector (Land/Revenue)/D.D.C. and another 1121 Collector of District if the conditions contained under Section 52-A (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act are fully satisfied. (Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel Caveator Opp. Party no. 2 as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record also. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.5.2006 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners raised a number of arguments including that impugned order is without jurisdiction as it cannot be passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. He further urged that there was no requirement of the Chak Marg after notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 4. Learned counsel for Opp. Party no.2 urged that Chak Road was given to Opp. Party no.2 in order to connect Kharanja Marg from his chak. 5. In rejoinder learned counsel for petitioners urged that Chak of Opp. Party no. 2 is still situated on existing Chak Road which connects the National Highway. 6. Considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record and relevant provisions of law. Section 52-A (1) of U.P.C.H. Act is being quoted below: In case of a unit in relation to which a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 52 has been issued before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1970, the Collector may, if he is of opinion that there exists no provision or inadequate provision of Chak Roads or Chak Guls in the unit and shall, if a representation in that behalf by not less than ten per cent of the total number of tenure-holders is made to him within six months of the said commencement, proceed to take action under sub section (2), anything to the contrary contained in Section 52 notwithstanding. 7. From perusal of materials on record, it transpires that notification under Section 52 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was published on 7.7.2001 and on an application moved by Opp. Party no.2 thereafter, the impugned order was passed providing Chak Road and Chak Nali. 8. This Court is of the view that under Section 52-A of the U.P.C.H. Act after notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act, the Collector may, if he is of the opinion that there exists no provision or inadequate provision of Chak Roads or Chak Guls in the unit and shall, if a representation in that behalf by not less than ten per cent of the total number of tenure-holders is made to him within six months of the said commencement, proceed to take action under sub-Section (2), anything to the contrary contained in section 52 notwithstanding. The impugned order was not passed by the Collector, but it was passed by the Additional District Magistrate/Deputy Director of Consolidation. The impugned order is without jurisdiction as such orders could only be passed by the 1122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006 Collector of District if the conditions contained under Section 52-A (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act are fully satisfied. 9. Accordingly writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order passed by the Additional District Magistrate/Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Collector, Ghazipur to be decided afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. Parties are at liberty to raise all the questions of law and fact before the Collector, Ghazipur. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33845 of 2004 Smt. Tejendra Chawla ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.C. Sinha Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P.N. Saxena Sri Amit Saxena Sri Uma Shanker Singh Sri Prakash Singh S.C. U.P. Intermediate Education Act-1921Chapter III Regulation 55 to 62 Chapter II-Appendix 'A'-Determination of seniority-teachers working in primary section-attached to Intermediate College-transferred from one institution to another recognised institution-by Joint Director's order 23 years ageservice rendered in earlier institutionalso shall be counted-not from the date of joining after transfer. Held: Para 9 Learned counsel for the contesting respondent has also very fairly drawn my attention to Appendix 'A' of Chapter-II, which provides qualifications for teachers of junior classes (6 to 8) and teachers of primary sections (Classes 1 to 5). The prescription of the qualification in Appendix 'A' clearly indicates that the teachers of the primary sections are not out of the purview of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Division Bench has already held that provisions of U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921 are applicable to the teachers of primary section. Moreso, in the present case the transfer order was passed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls School specifically referring Regulations 55 to 62, thus, the transfer order itself was under the power conferred under Regulations 55 to 62. In this writ petition there cannot be any challenge to the transfer order which was passed 23 years ago nor any such challenge has been made. Regulation 59A is squarely applicable as it was existing at the relevant time, hence the petitioner's services prior to transfer has to be added for the purposes of seniority. Case law discussed: 1973 (2) ESC-171 relied on. 1978 ALJ 1042 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.) 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents and the learned standing counsel. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 7th August, 2004 passed by Joint Director of Education (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).