# Lalji & Anr v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation Alld. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 158
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-02-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 454 of 1977
- **Bench:** Ran Vijai Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalji-anr-v-the-deputy-director-of-consolidation-alld-ors-43264
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-Section
48(3)-Reference made by consolidation
officer
without
notice
opportunity
to
petitioner-held illegal-provisions of Section
48(3) being mandatory order impugned
unsustainable-quashed.
Held: Para-12
From the bare perusal of the records and
the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, it transpires that
before making reference, no opportunity
was offered to the petitioner, therefore,
the reference itself was void in nature.
Case Law discussed:
1977 AWC 259; 2013 (6) ADJ 457; (2000(91)
RD 165); Writ C No. 5651 of 2009.

## Text

158
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
24. Accordingly, allowing the writ
petition,
the
impugned
order
of
punishment dated 04-01-2006 is quashed
on the ground that no enquiry was held. In
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, we are also of the view that since the
petitioner has retired long ago, it would
not be justifiable to continue with the
departmental
enquiry
anymore.
The
petitioner is entitled to receive all his
pensionary dues without any reduction.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.02.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 454 of 1977
Lalji & Anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
The Deputy Director of Consolidation
Alld. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K. Singh, Sri A.P. Singh, Sri S.
Shekhar, Sri Anshuman Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Sri R.N. Shukla, Sri D.D. Chauhan,
Sri Diwakar Singh, Sri P.R. Maurya, Sri
R.K. Shukla, Sri R.P. Mishra
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-Section
48(3)-Reference made by consolidation
officer
without
notice
opportunity
to
petitioner-held illegal-provisions of Section
48(3) being mandatory order impugned
unsustainable-quashed.
Held: Para-12
From the bare perusal of the records and
the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, it transpires that
before making reference, no opportunity
was offered to the petitioner, therefore,
the reference itself was void in nature.
Case Law discussed:
1977 AWC 259; 2013 (6) ADJ 457; (2000(91)
RD 165); Writ C No. 5651 of 2009.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.)
1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned
senior counsel assisted by Sri A.P. Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondents, Sri Diwakar Singh learned
counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri P.R.
Maurya, learned counsel as an intervenor.
2. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ
of certiorari quashing the order dated
25.3.1977 passed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation in Reference No. 1307
(State Vs. Lalji and Others), by which the
aforesaid reference has been allowed and
the leases granted in favour of the
petitioners on 17.10.1976 have been
cancelled.
3. The facts giving rise to this case
are that the respondent-Gaon Sabha has
made a proposal for grant of agricultural
lease in favour of the petitioner no. 1 over
gata nos. 319, 320, 322, 334/1, 334/2,
335M, 337/3337/2, 324, 333M, 323/1,
323/2 and 325. The same kind of proposal
was made for grant of lease in favour of
petitioner no. 2 also on gata no. 74, 75M,
76/1, 76/2, 77, 78, 326/1, 326/2, 337, 338,
330/2, 331 and 332/7. The proposal of the
gaon sabha was approved by the Sub
Divisional Officer and consequently, the
leases were also executed in favour of the
petitioners. The petitioners names were
also mutated in the revenue records on
8.1.1976 on the basis of the aforesaid.
4. It further transpires that the
village has gone under consolidation
1 All] LalJi & Anr. Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation Alld. & Ors.
159
operation and pending consolidation, a
complaint was made before the Sub
Divisional Officer for cancellation of the
petitioners' leases on the ground that the
persons, in whose favour leases have been
granted, do not belong to that very
village. The Sub Divisional Officer had
made an inquiry and reported the matter
before the Consolidation Officer. The
Consolidation Officer, in turn, made a
reference while exercising power vested
in him under sub-section (3) of section 48
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 (in short, 'the Act') vide order
dated 10.6.1976. In turn, the Deputy
Director of Consolidation had decided the
reference after hearing all concerned and
allowed the same, cancelling the leases
granted in favour of the petitioners.
5. Before the Deputy Director of
Consolidation,
two
contradictory
decisions of this Court were cited; one of
the year 1970, wherein this Court has held
that the Deputy Director of Consolidation
has no jurisdiction to cancel the lease
granted under the provisions of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950. Another decision was cited in
which it was held that the Deputy
Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction
to adjudicate upon the validity of the
lease.
The
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, placing reliance upon the
second judgment of this Court, which was
later in time, has assumed the jurisdiction
and passed the impugned order.
6. While assailing the impugned
order, learned counsel for the petitioners
has made following submissions:
1) the order of reference dated
10.6.1976 was without jurisdiction as
before passing the impugned order, no
opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioners,
which
was
mandatorily
required in view of the provisions
contained under sub section (3) of section
48 of the Act;
2) in view of the Full Bench decision
of this Court in the case of Simlesh
Kumar Vs. Gaon Sabha and Others (1977
AWC 259), the Deputy Director of
Consolidation had no jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon the validity of the lease
or allotment of land granted by a Land
Management Committee.
7. So far as the first submission of
learned counsel for the petitioners with
regard to affording opportunity of hearing
before passing the order of reference is
concerned,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners contended that the petitioners
were neither associated at the time of
inquiry made by the Sub Divisional
Officer pursuant thereto reference was
made, nor before making the reference,
the Consolidation Officer has ever issued
notices or heard the petitioners.
8. On being confronted as to
whether the petitioners were associated at
the time of inquiry or at the time of
making
reference,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing
for
the
Staterespondents, Sri Diwakar Singh, learned
counsel for the gaon sabha and Sri P.R.
Maurya, learned counsel who appears as
an intervenor, could not show from the
perusal of the impugned order that before
making the reference, the petitioners were
noticed and heard.
9. For appreciating the controversy,
it would be appropriate to go through the
provisions contained under sub-section
(3) of Section 48 of the Act, which reads
as under:
160
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"(3) Any authority subordinate to the
Director of Consolidation may, after
allowing
the
parties
concerned
an
opportunity of being heard, refer the
record of any case or proceedings to the
Director of Consolidation for action
under sub-section (1)."
10. From the bare reading of the
aforesaid provision, it is apparent that the
authority subordinate to the Director of
Consolidation
may,
before
making
reference, shall provide an opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned.
11. This Court in Ram Pratap Vs.
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
Others (2013(6)ADJ 457), dealing with
the provisions contained under subsection (3) of Section 48 of the Act, has
held as under:
"12. It is also well-settled that if any
thing has not been done in the manner
provided for under the Statute and the
Statute has provided a consequence for nonperformance of such act as provided for,
then those provisions are mandatory and not
directory. This Court in the case of Smt.
Dukhani and another v. State of U.P. and
others, passed in Writ Petition No. 42057 of
2012 has held that the provisions contained
under sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of
Section 48 are mandatory in nature and
unless the procedure as prescribed under the
statute is followed, that order would be void
order."
12. From the bare perusal of the
records and the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties, it
transpires that before making reference,
no opportunity was offered to the
petitioner, therefore, the reference itself
was void in nature.
13. So far as second submission
based on the Full Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Simlesh Kumar Vs.
Gaon Sabha and Others (1977 AWC 259)
regarding jurisdiction, wherein it has been
held
that
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon the validity of the lease
or allotment granted by the Land
Management Committee is concerned,
learned counsel for the respondents
placing reliance upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of U.P. Sugar
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dy. Director of
Consolidation and Others (2000(91) RD
165), has submitted that the Deputy
Director of Consolidation had jurisdiction
to
look
into
the
validity
of
the
lease/allotment of land. In support of his
submissions, he has placed reliance upon
para 44 of the aforesaid judgment, which
reads as under:
"44. The decision of this Court in
Garakh Nath Dube's case (supra) was
also followed by the Allahabad High
Court in Ramanand Vs. DDC and Others,
and it was held that a document which is
void and is, therefore, liable to be ignored
by the courts, would not affect the
jurisdiction of the Consolidation Courts
and
they
would
be
within
their
jurisdiction in adjudicating upon that
document so as to finally decide the rights
of the parties. The Full Bench decision of
the High Court in Similesh Kumar's case
(supra) was distinguished."
14. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has also placed reliance upon
the judgment of this Court rendered in
Writ C No. 5651 of 2009 (Noor Mohd.
and Others Vs. Addl. Commissioner and
Others, decided on 13.11.2014). So far as
the judgment of Apex Court is concerned,
1 All]
 (Smt.) Leena Katiyar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
161
there the Apex Court has held that if a
document is void, in that eventuality, the
Deputy Director of Consolidation will
have jurisdiction to look into the same
and ignore the same.
15. Sri Mourya, taking shelter of the
judgment in the case of Noor Mohd (supra),
has submitted that the Deputy Director of
Consolidation had jurisdiction as the leases
were void. In the case of Noor Mohd
(supra), His Lordship was dealing with the
procedural lapse in the process of grant of
lease, wherein it was found that the required
Z.A. Forms 57 and 58 were not signed, in
that eventuality, the Court held that such
lease was void in nature.
16. Here in this case, not even a
single whisper has been made regarding
procedural lapse, i.e., non-signing of Z.A.
Forms 57 or 58, nor anything has been
argued before this Court that there was no
resolution of the gaon sabha, or the Sub
Divisional Officer has not approved the
leases, nonetheless, the allegation in the
application seeking cancellation of the
lease was that the petitioners do not
belong to the village where the land is
situated; in other words, they are of the
different villages. In my considered
opinion, whether a particular person
belongs to the village concerned or not,
was a question of fact and was to be
adjudicated upon on the basis of the
evidence produced by the parties and such
allegation will not render the lease void.
Therefore, in view of the Full Bench
decision of this Court in the case of
Simlesh Kumar (supra), the Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
had
no
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter
and the impugned order passed by him is
without jurisdiction. The cases cited by
Sri Mourya are of no help to him.
17. In view of the foregoing
discussions, the writ petition succeeds and
is allowed. The order dated 25.3.1977
passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation in Reference No. 1307
(State Vs. Lalji and Others) is hereby
quashed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.02.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
Criminal Misc. Application No. 540 of 2015
(U/s 482 CR.P.C.)
(Smt.) Leena Katiyar
...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Applicant:
Akanksha Yadav, Sri Prem Prakash Yadav
Counsel for the jOpp. Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Narendra Kumar Singh, Sri
R.K. Dubey, Sri S.K. Pandey.
Indian
Evidence
Act-Section
65-Bapplication-taking voice sample of accused
persons-offence under Section 364-A, 302,
201 IPC school going boy kidnappeddemand
of
ransom
Rs.
10
lacs
by
telephonic mode rejection-on ground in
absence
of
laboratory
in
District
in
question-earlier order recalled-held-illegal
u/s 165 of evidence Act audio CD
admissible in evidence-in view of law by
Apex Court taking voice sample not hit by
Art. 20(3) of Constitution-order impugned
quashed with necessary directions.
Held: Para-33
These days the manner in which the crime
is being committed by the accused persons
by adopting high materialized techniques
and there is a great deal of technological
advanced in means of communication and
criminals are using new methodology in