# Nand Lal v. D.D.C, Dist. Hardoi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 902
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-08-05
- **Case number:** Consolidation No. 567 of 2015
- **Bench:** Ritu Raj Awasthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nand-lal-v-d-d-c-dist-hardoi-ors-43233
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-Jurisdiction
of
Consolidation
Authorities-benefits
of
Section 122-B (4-f) of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Actprovision of Section 122-B-except Collector,
the Consolidation authorities no jurisdictionany direction conferring any rights-null and
void.
Held: Para-12
Section 122-B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act
is in fact a proviso to Section 122-B of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, it provides that
where
any
agricultural
labourer
belonging to a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled
Tribe
category
is
in
occupation of the land veted in a Gaon
Sabha
under
Section
117
having
occupied it from before 13.05.2007 and
the land so occupied does not exceed
1.26 hectares, then no action under this
section shall be taken by the Land
Management Committee or the Collector
against such labourer and he shall be
admitted
as
bhumidhar
with
nontransferable rights of the land under
Section 195.

## Text

902
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
further issue would survive in the writ
petition filed by the respondents (original
petitioners), both the special appeal and
the writ petition shall be governed by the
present judgment and are accordingly
disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.08.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.
Consolidation No. 567 of 2015
Nand Lal
...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C, Dist. Hardoi & Ors.
Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Ankit Kumar
Singh, Vinod Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Yogendra Nath Yadav
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-Jurisdiction
of
Consolidation
Authorities-benefits
of
Section 122-B (4-f) of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Actprovision of Section 122-B-except Collector,
the Consolidation authorities no jurisdictionany direction conferring any rights-null and
void.
Held: Para-12
Section 122-B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act
is in fact a proviso to Section 122-B of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, it provides that
where
any
agricultural
labourer
belonging to a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled
Tribe
category
is
in
occupation of the land veted in a Gaon
Sabha
under
Section
117
having
occupied it from before 13.05.2007 and
the land so occupied does not exceed
1.26 hectares, then no action under this
section shall be taken by the Land
Management Committee or the Collector
against such labourer and he shall be
admitted
as
bhumidhar
with
nontransferable rights of the land under
Section 195.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.)
1. The legal question involved in this
writ petition, which requires consideration
is whether consolidation authorities during
consolidation proceedings have any power
or authority to decide that a person is
entitled to get the benefit of Section 122-B 4
(f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and accordingly
confer such benefit upon him.
2. Notice on behalf of opposite
parties no.1 and 2 has been accepted by
learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas
Mr. Yogendra Nath Yadav, Advocate has
accepted notice on behalf of opposite
party no.6.
3. For the orders proposed, there is no
need to issue notice to opposite parties no.3
to 5, as such, notice to opposite parties no.3
to 5 have been dispensed with.
4.
The instant writ petition has been
filed challenging the impugned order dated
29.5.2015, passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation,
Hardoi
in
Revision
No.188/14-15 filed under Section 48 of
U.P.C.H. Act and the order dated 3.10.2012
passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation
in Appeal No.243, under Section 11 (1) of
U.P.C.H. Act, as contained in Annexures-1
and 2 respectively to the writ petition.
5. As per given facts of the case in
the writ petition when the consolidation
proceedings were initiated in the village
in question, the petitioner had preferred
objection under Section 9-A (2) of
U.P.C.H. Act before the Consolidation
2 All] Nand Lal Vs. D.D.C. Hardoi & Ors.
903
Officer which was registered as Case
No.466 TB. It was prayed that the
petitioner
may
be
declared
as
Asankramariya Bhumidhar under the
provisions of Section 122-B 4 (f) of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act regarding Gatas
No.526, 536, 538/1, 544 and 548
measuring area 6 biswa, 7 biswa, 3 biswa
and 3 biswa respectively, over which the
petitioner is allegedly in possession from
the last several years.
6. Learned Consolidation Officer
vide order dated 19.4.1996 had allowed
the objection filed by the petitioner and
had given benefit of Section 122-B 4 (f)
of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act to the petitioner
as Asankramariya Bhumidhar over Gata
No.526 Khata No.675 by deleting the
entry Banjar and regarding Gata No.544
and 548 Khata No.671 by deleting the
entry Prachin Parti. It is also stated that
after approximately 8 years, father of
opposite parties no.3 to 5 had preferred an
appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H.
Act
before
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation challenging the order dated
19.4.1996 claiming possession over the
land in question. The said appeal was
dismissed vide impugned order dated
3.10.2012, however, the order dated
19.4.1996 passed by the Consolidation
Officer was set aside and land in question
was directed to be recorded as 'Banjar'
and 'Prachin Parti' in the revenue records.
Thereafter,
feeling
aggrieved
the
petitioner had preferred revision under
Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act which has
been dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was in
possession over the land in question from
last 30 years and, as such, was entitled to
get the benefit of Section 122-B 4 (f) of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which was rightly
given to him by the order of the
Consolidation Officer. It is also submitted
that
the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Sandila vide order dated 9.12.2005 had
declared the petitioner as Sankramariya
Bhumidhar under the provisions of
Section 131 Kha of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
The said order was never challenged in
any court of law.
8. Submission is that the appellate
authority as well as the revisional
authority has failed to properly consider
the contentions raised by the petitioner as
the revision preferred by the petitioner has
been wrongly dismissed.
9. Learned Standing Counsel
opposing the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that learned Consolidation Officer has no
jurisdiction or power to give benefit of
Section 122-B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act while deciding the objection filed
under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act.
He is not the competent authority to
decide as to whether the petitioner is
entitled to get the benefit of Section 122B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or not. No
competent authority has passed any order
giving benefit of Section 122-B 4 (f) of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in favour of the
petitioner, as such, the order passed by the
Consolidation
Officer
was
patently
erroneous,
wrong
and
illegal.
The
appellate authority has rightly dismissed
the appeal preferred by the respondents.
The revisional authority has also rightly
dismissed the revision preferred by the
petitioner.
10.

I
have
considered
the
submissions made by parties' counsel and
gone through the records.
904
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
11. Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act relates to the power of Land
Management
Committee
and
the
Collector which provides that where any
property vested under the provisions of
this Act in a Gaon Sabha or a local
authority is damaged or misappropriated
or where any Gaon Sabha or local
authority is entitled to take or retain
possession of any land under the
provisions of this Act and such land is
occupied otherwise than in accordance
with the provisions of this Act, the Land
Management
Committee
or
local
authority, as the case may be, shall inform
the Assistant Collector concerned in the
manner prescribed and the proceedings
shall be held for dispossession from the
land belonging to the Gaon Sabha.
12. Section 122-B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act is in fact a proviso to Section
122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, it provides
that where any agricultural labourer
belonging to a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe category is in occupation
of the land veted in a Gaon Sabha under
Section 117 having occupied it from
before 13.05.2007 and the land so
occupied does not exceed 1.26 hectares,
then no action under this section shall be
taken
by
the
Land
Management
Committee or the Collector against such
labourer and he shall be admitted as
bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of
the land under Section 195.
13. The provisions of Section 122-B
of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act clearly relates to
powers
of
the
Land
Management
Committee and the Collector for the
purpose of dispossession of unauthorized
persons from the land of Gaon Sabha. The
benefit of Section 122-B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act could not have been ordered
in
consolidation
proceedings
while
deciding the objection filed under Section
9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. In the present
case the Consolidation Officer while
deciding the objection filed under Section
9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act by the order
dated 19.4.1996 had directed the land in
question to be recorded in the name of
petitioner, giving him benefit of Section
122-B 4 (f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which
was
patently
wrong
and
without
jurisdiction.
14. The appeal preferred by private
respondents claiming the land in question
was although dismissed, however, the
appellate authority i.e., the Settlement
Officer Consolidation, Hardoi had rightly
observed
in
its
order
that
the
Consolidation Officer has no authority or
power to grant benefit of Section 122-B 4
(f) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act to the
petitioner
and
this
order
of
the
Consolidation
Officer
was
without
jurisdiction. The appellate authority had
correctly directed the land in question
shall be recorded in the name of Gaon
Sabha as Banjar, Prachin Parti. The
petitioner against the said appellate order
had filed revision which has been
dismissed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation by the impugned order
dated 29.5.2015.
15. Needless to observe that the
contention of the petitioner that the SubDivisional Magistrate, Sandila vide order
dated 9.12.2005 declared the petitioner as
Sankramariya Bhumidhar over the land in
question under the provisions of Section
131 Kha of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and the
said order was never challenged in any
Court of law, was not the matter
considered
by
the
Consolidation
authorities
under
the
aforesaid
2 All] Pateshwari Dutt Pandey Vs. D.D.C. Dist. Faizabad & Ors.
905
proceedings, hence petitioner, at this
stage, cannot be permitted to raise such a
plea in order to challenge the impugned
orders.
16. In view of above, I do not find
any infirmity or illegality in the order
impugned. The writ petition being devoid
of merit is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.08.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.
Consolidation No. 571 of 2015
Pateshwari Dutt Pandey
......Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. Dist. Faizabad & Ors.
Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Aditya Tiwari
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Vijay Krishna
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-Section
42-A read with 52(2) and Rule 109-Acorrection
of
map-after
40
years
of
publication of notification under Section 52whether can be entertained by consolidation
authorities-held-on highly belated stage-can
not
be
entertained
by
consolidation
authorities-except
the
exceptional
circumstance given in Ghamari case.
Held: Para-20
In view of above, it is, therefore, held
that the application under Section 42-A
of
the
Act
for
correction
of
final
consolidation map will not lie before the
Consolidation Courts after the close of
consolidation operation in the unit after
issuance of notification under Section 52
(1) of the Act except in exceptional
circumstances as observed in the case of
Ghamari
Vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Ballia and others; [2003
(94) RD 90]. Such application will lie
only before the authority under the U.P.
Land Revenue Act under Section 28.
Case Law discussed:
[2008 (105) RD 469]; [2014 (32)LCD 1912];
1979 RD 76 (DB); 1989 RD 281; [2003 (94)
RD 90]; [2015 (1) JCLR 310 (All)]; [2003 (94)
RD 90].
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.)
1. Notice on behalf of respondents
no. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the
learned Chief Standing Counsel. Mr. N.K.
Seth, learned senior advocate assisted by
Mr. Vijay Krishna has put in appearance
on behalf of respondent no. 3.
2. For the order proposed to be
passed, there is no need to issue notices to
respondents no. 4 and 4, hence notices to
them are hereby dispensed with.
3. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
4. The writ petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 03.07.2015
passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Faizabad in Reference No.
213 as contained in Annexure-1 to writ
petition.
5.
As per given facts of the case,
Village Janaura, Pargana - Haveli Awadh
was notified for consolidation operation
under Section 41 U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') sometime
in
the
year
1968.
The
Assistant
Consolidation Officer during preparation of
Khasra Chak bandi of each plot as well as
revision of the map, found that there is a
tube-well and temporary construction on one
biswa land of old plot no. 639. He vide order