# Iqbal Ahmad and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 375
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-03-17
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38910 of 2003
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/iqbal-ahmad-and-others-v-deputy-director-of-consolidation-deoria-and-others-40455
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Sri V.K. Singh
S.C.

U.P.
Zamindari
abolution
and
Land
Reforms,
Act
1951-Section-132
read
with U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act
1963-Section
3
(2)-Land-as
defined
under section 3 (2) of the Consolidation
Act-shall be included in Consolidation
Scheme-as mentioned under 132 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-Land covered by
water-recorded as 'Garhi' in revenue
record-can not be part of consolidation
Scheme-general mandamus issued to the
State
Government
to
constituted
a
special investigation team to locate the
plots recorded as Tank, Pakhari water
channel etc. as recorded on 1.6.02 in the
revenue record.-and to take appropriate
steps for compliance of the Apex Court's
direction in Hinch Lal Tiwari case.

Held- Para 13 & 14

In these circumstances, I am of the view
that the State Government may be
directed
to
constitute
a
special
investigation Team to locate the plots
recorded
as
Tank,
Pokhari,
Water
Channels and riverbed etc. on the date of
vesting in every village throughout the
State of Uttar Pradesh and in case it is
found that anyone is in unauthorized
possession of such land mentioned under
Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and
is using these land for any other purpose
other than mentioned under Section 132
of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act State Government
shall take appropriate action forthwith
and restore the same to Gaon Sabha to
maintain the same in the same position
as on 1st July, 1952.
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
Recently, some reports were published
that in future we may face acute
problem of water. Water strata in
different parts of our country is also
going down which is a cause of worry for
entire nation.
Case law discussed:
A.C.J. 2001 1604

## Text

1 All] Rajeev Kumar and another V. State of U.P. and others
375
found their complaints to be correct, that
the petitioners and the Gram Shiksha
Samiti had colluded and had deliberately
prepared the resolution suppressing their
candidature and recommending the names
of petitioners Rajeev Kumar and Khetal
Singh who had less quality point marks
than respondent nos. 7 and 8. The District
Magistrate, in the circumstances reviewed
his earlier order dated 9.2.2005 vide order
dated 17.03.2005 cancelling the selections
of the petitioners holding that the
petitioners had less quality point marks
than respondent nos. 7 and 8 and were not
entitled for appointment. The findings of
fact recorded by the District Magistrate
that
Gram
Shiksha
Samiti
has
recommended the names of the petitioners
has obtained appointments in collusion
with the Gram Shiksha Samiti. The
selection process was only an eye wash
and fraud. It is settled law that fraud
vitiates every action and does not vest the
petitioner with any legal right. The order
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate
advances the cause of substantial justice.

9. In the circumstances of the case I
do not find any ground for interference
with the impugned order under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

For the reasons stated above, the writ
petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.02.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38910 of 2003

Iqbal Ahmad and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri S.A. Lari
Sri L.K. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Singh
S.C.

U.P.
Zamindari
abolution
and
Land
Reforms,
Act
1951-Section-132
read
with U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act
1963-Section
3
(2)-Land-as
defined
under section 3 (2) of the Consolidation
Act-shall be included in Consolidation
Scheme-as mentioned under 132 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-Land covered by
water-recorded as 'Garhi' in revenue
record-can not be part of consolidation
Scheme-general mandamus issued to the
State
Government
to
constituted
a
special investigation team to locate the
plots recorded as Tank, Pakhari water
channel etc. as recorded on 1.6.02 in the
revenue record.-and to take appropriate
steps for compliance of the Apex Court's
direction in Hinch Lal Tiwari case.

Held- Para 13 & 14

In these circumstances, I am of the view
that the State Government may be
directed
to
constitute
a
special
investigation Team to locate the plots
recorded
as
Tank,
Pokhari,
Water
Channels and riverbed etc. on the date of
vesting in every village throughout the
State of Uttar Pradesh and in case it is
found that anyone is in unauthorized
possession of such land mentioned under
Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and
is using these land for any other purpose
other than mentioned under Section 132
of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act State Government
shall take appropriate action forthwith
and restore the same to Gaon Sabha to
maintain the same in the same position
as on 1st July, 1952.
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
Recently, some reports were published
that in future we may face acute
problem of water. Water strata in
different parts of our country is also
going down which is a cause of worry for
entire nation.
Case law discussed:
A.C.J. 2001 1604
(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava,J.)

1. This writ petition is directed
against the order dated 9.5.2003, passed
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Deoria allowing the revision of Gaon
Sabha setting aside orders of allotment
made
by
subordinate
Consolidation
Authorities in respect of Plot No. 757 and
further
quashing
order
determining
valuation and inclusion of Plot No. 757 in
petitioners' Chak no. 15.

2. It is borne out from the record that
Plot no. 757 area 13 Acre was recorded as
Garhi in the Khata of Gaon Sabha and
was not included in the consolidation
scheme, but subsequently by an order of
correction
passed
by
Consolidation
Officer this plot was included in the
consolidation scheme by determining
valuation of eight Anna and it was
allotted in the chak of petitioners. An
appeal preferred by Gaon Sabha against
the said order was dismissed vide order
dated 13.4.1998 but revision preferred
against appellate order was allowed and
the plot in question was restored to Gaon
Sabha.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners and perused the record.

3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
urged
that
there
is
no
prohibition in U.P. Consolidation of
Holding Act (hereinafter in short referred
to as the U.P.C.H. Act) for allotment of
Gaon Sabha property recorded as Garhi
(land mentioned in revenue record as
covered by water) and order for inclusion
of Plot No. 757 recorded as Garhi in
petitioners' chak was rightly passed in
accordance with law. He further urged
that as the impugned order was passed by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation
after notification under Section 52 of the
U.P.C.H. Act as such the Deputy Director
of Consolidation acted illegally and
without
jurisdiction
in
passing
the
impugned order, the same is liable to be
quashed.

4. I duly considered arguments of
learned counsel for the petitioners and I
am of the view that none of the arguments
pressed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners could be sustained in law.
Under the U.P.C.H. Act 'consolidation' is
defined under Section 3 (2). Explanation
(iii) of Section 3 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act
makes it clear that land mentioned under
Section 132 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition
& Land Reforms Act (in short hereinafter
referred to as the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act)
shall not be included in consolidation
Scheme.

5. Section 132 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act and Section 3 (2), Explanation (iii)
are being reproduced below for ready
reference:-

Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act

"132 Land to which (bhumidhari)
rights shall not accrue-Notwithstanding to
the provisions of Section 19 (bhumidhari)
rights shall not accrue-

(a) Pasture lands or lands covered by
water and used for the purpose of growing
Singhara or other produce of land in the
1 All] Iqbal Ahmad and others V. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Deoria and others
377
bed of a river and used for casual or
occasional cultivation:

X

X

X

Section 3 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act

"3 (2) 'Consolidation' means rearrangement of holdings in a unit amongst
several tenure-holders in such a way as to
make their respective holding more
compact;

Explanation-For the purpose of this
clause, holding shall not include the
following:

X

X

X
(iii) Land mentioned in Section 132 of
the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, 1950;

X

X

X

6. From perusal of the above
provisions, it is clear that if any land is
mentioned under Section 132 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act it shall not be
included in the consolidation scheme for
the purposes of consolidation.

7. Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R.
Act
makes
it
clear
that
notwithstanding any thing contained in
this Section, but without prejudice to
Section 19 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,
Bhumidhari rights shall not accrue to any
land covered by water. As plot in question
is Garhi it cannot be part of consolidation
scheme for allotment proceeding in the
unit and as such it was rightly excluded
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation
from the consolidation scheme.

8. From the material on record it
transpires that the land in dispute was
recorded as Gaon Sabha property, as
mentioned under Section 132 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and as such at the
time
of
revision
of
Field
Book,
Determination of valuation etc. and
preparation of Statement of Principles, as
required under Section 8 and 8-A of the
U.P.C.H. Act on the date of publication of
the record under Section-9 of the
U.P.C.H. Act in the unit, this land was not
included in the consolidation scheme and
that is why valuation of this land was not
determined with the result the matter
relating to valuation of the plot became
final under Section-11-A of the U.P.C.H.
Act, which runs as follows:-

"11-A. Bar on objection.- No
question in respect of-

(i) claims to land,
(ii) partition of joint holdings, and
(iii) valuation of plots, trees, wells and
other improvements, where the question is
sought to be raised by a tenure-holder of
the plot or the owner of the tree, well or
other improvements recorded in the
annual registrar under Section 10,
relating to the consolidation area, (which
has been raised under Section 9 or which
might or ought to have been raised under
that section), but has not been so raised,
shall be raised or heard at any subsequent
stage of the consolidation proceedings."

9. From perusal of record it is also
clear that in correction proceeding, the
valuation of the plot in dispute was
determined and was illegally included in
the consolidation scheme and allotted in
the
petitioners'
Chak.
The
Deputy
Director of Consolidation rightly passed
the impugned order in accordance with
law. There is no illegality in the order of
the Deputy Director of Consolidation and
does not call for any interference.

10. The matter relating to Pond and
Tank etc. in villages came up for
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
consideration before the Apex Court in
Hinchlal Tiwari Vs. Kamla Devi and
others1. The Apex Court in paragraph-13
of the judgment has considered this
aspect, same is being reproduced below:

"13. It is important to notice that the
material resources of the community like
forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain
etc. are nature's bounty. They maintain
delicate ecological balance. They need to
be protected for a proper and healthy
environment which enables people to
enjoy a quality life which is the essence of
the guaranteed right under Article 21 of
the
Constitution.
The
Government,
including the Revenue Authorities i.e.
Respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that
a pond is falling in disuse, should have
bestowed their attention to develop the
same which would, on one hand, have
prevented ecological disaster and on the
other provided better environment for the
benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is
best protection against knavish attempts
to seek allotment in non-abadi sites"

11. In the aforesaid judgment, Apex
Court laid down that as the Tank, Garhi
(land covered by water), pond and forest
etc. are nature's bounty they need be
protected
for
proper
and
health
environment which enables people to
enjoy a quality life which is essence of
guaranteed rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.

12. The Legislature, while enacting
U.P.Z.S. & L.T. Act as well as U.P.C.H.
Act, has also taken a special care for
Tanks, Garhi, Ponds, water channels and
riverbed etc. to ensure protection in order
to give proper and healthy environment to

1 All C.J. 2001 1604
enjoy the people a qualitative life and to
prevent ecological disaster.

13. In these circumstances, I am of
the view that the State Government may
be directed to constitute a special
investigation Team to locate the plots
recorded
as
Tank,
Pokhari,
Water
Channels and riverbed etc. on the date of
vesting in every village throughout the
State of Uttar Pradesh and in case it is
found that anyone is in unauthorized
possession of such land mentioned under
Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act
and is using these land for any other
purpose other than mentioned under
Section 132 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act State
Government shall take appropriate action
forthwith and restore the same to Gaon
Sabha to maintain the same in the same
position as on 1st July, 1952.

14. Recently, some reports were
published that in future we may face acute
problem of water. Water strata in different
parts of our country is also going down
which is a cause of worry for entire
nation.

15. In these circumstances, the
direction of the Apex Court in Hinch Lal
Tiwari Vs. Kamla Devi and others
(Supra)
to
maintain
Ponds,
Water
Channels, Pokhras, Garhi (land covered
by water) etc. recorded in the revenue
records on the date of vesting as covered
by under Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act be complied forthwith and land
covered by water be restored and
maintained in the interest of the public in
order to maintain ecological balance and
protecting environment. For this purpose
special measures needs to be taken at the
grass route level so that directions of the
Apex Court be complied with.
1 All] Iqbal Ahmad and others V. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Deoria and others
379

16. Accordingly, State Government
is
directed
to
make
a
thorough
investigation of each village of each
District throughout State of Uttar Pradesh
in respect of Forests, tanks, ponds and
Garhi, water channel and riverbed etc. on
the basis of the revenue records of the
date of vesting, i.e., 1st July, 1952 by
constituting a special investigation team
consisting of Revenue authorities and
other
concerned
officials
and
Environmentalists and take appropriate
steps for compliance of the Apex Court's
directions in Hinchlal Tiwari Vs. Kamla
Devi and others (Supra). The State
Government of Uttar Pradesh is also
directed to make compliance of this order
within one year from the date of service
of this order to Standing Counsel/Chief
Secretary of Government of Uttar Pradesh
to be circulated to all the District
Magistrates and Consolidation Authorities
of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

List after a year on 6th March, 2006.
---------