# Ram Nagina Das Chela v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and another

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 721
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-05-02
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.21638 of 2006
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-nagina-das-chela-v-dy-director-of-consolidation-and-another-40640
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation Holding Act Section-3
(II)-Power of Consolidation authoritiesconfined to decide the right title, interest
in Land of tenure holder-admittedly Sri
Shanti
Hanuman
Ji
(Deity)
found
recorded
as
Bhumidhar-with
consolidation court has no concerns with
the right of Sarverakarship-which can be
adjudicated by only the Civil CourtPetition dismissed.

Held: Para 8

Admittedly,
Sri
Shanti
Hanuman
Ji
(Deity) is Bhumidhar of the land in
dispute. Bhumidhar is recorded through
Sarvakar-Haridas. Actually petitioner is
not disputing rights of Bhumidhar. He is
disputing rights of Sarvakarship, which
can be decided by Civil Court, and cannot
be
decided
by
the
Consolidation
authorities and as such Consolidation
authorities rightly did not decide the
question whether Sri Shanti Hanuman Ji,
who is Deity, is liable to be represented
through Haridas or through Ram Nagina
Das-petitioner.
Case law discussed:
1971 R.D.-19 relied on

## Text

2 All] Ram Nagina Das Chela V. D.D.C., Deoria and another
721
32. We consequently, dismiss all the
petitions, with no order as to costs. The
interim orders are discharged.
Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2006

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.21638 of 2006

Ram Nagina Das Chela
...Petitioner
Versus
Dy.
Director
of
Consolidation
and
another

 ...Opposite parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri O.P. Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Chandra Prakash Mishra
S.C.

U.P. Consolidation Holding Act Section-3
(II)-Power of Consolidation authoritiesconfined to decide the right title, interest
in Land of tenure holder-admittedly Sri
Shanti
Hanuman
Ji
(Deity)
found
recorded
as
Bhumidhar-with
consolidation court has no concerns with
the right of Sarverakarship-which can be
adjudicated by only the Civil CourtPetition dismissed.

Held: Para 8

Admittedly,
Sri
Shanti
Hanuman
Ji
(Deity) is Bhumidhar of the land in
dispute. Bhumidhar is recorded through
Sarvakar-Haridas. Actually petitioner is
not disputing rights of Bhumidhar. He is
disputing rights of Sarvakarship, which
can be decided by Civil Court, and cannot
be
decided
by
the
Consolidation
authorities and as such Consolidation
authorities rightly did not decide the
question whether Sri Shanti Hanuman Ji,
who is Deity, is liable to be represented
through Haridas or through Ram Nagina
Das-petitioner.
Case law discussed:
1971 R.D.-19 relied on

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed
against the order dated 18th January, 2006,
passed
by
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Deoria, Annexure-10 to
the writ petition.

2. In the Basic year Sri Shanti
Hanuman Ji (Deity) through Sarvakar
Haridas was recorded as tenure-holder. It
transpires from the record that in C.H.
Form-23 some entries were made on the
basis of an order allegedly passed in
conciliation proceedings by Assistant
Consolidation Officer. It further appears
from the record that Haridas who was
Sarvakar of the tenure-holder (Deity)
moved an application that this is a forge
entry as no order was passed by Assistant
Consolidation Officer in conciliation
proceeding
and
the same may be
expunged. The matter came up before this
Court in Writ Petition 32133 of 1999
wherein this Court while remanding the
matter directed that petitioners are entitled
to get opportunity on the question whether
entry is forge or not. On remand, the
matter was enquired into and it was found
that entry made in consolidation record on
the basis of alleged order passed by
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer
in
conciliation
proceeding
was
forged.
Present petition is preferred against
aforesaid order passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation.

3. Heard learned counsel for
petitioner as well as learned Standing
Counsel.
722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006

4. Learned counsel for petitioner
urged that the order passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation suffers from
error of law apparent on the face of record
inasmuch as the finding of Deputy
Director of Consolidation that there is no
such order is perverse. The order was
passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer
in conciliation proceedings which was not
taken into account by Deputy Director of
Consolidation
while
passing
the
impugned order. Learned counsel for
petitioner did not produce any certified
copy of the alleged order passed by
Assistant
Consolidation
Office
in
conciliation proceeding.

5. Considered arguments of learned
counsel for petitioner as well as learned
Standing Counsel and perused the record.

6. On careful consideration by the
Consolidation authorities, it was found
that entry made in favour of petitioner
was forged as no such order passed by
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer
in
conciliation proceeding. No material was
brought to the notice of this Court by
learned counsel for petitioner that any
such order was ever passed on the basis of
which entry was made in revenue record.
Findings of Consolidation authorities are
based on appraisal of evidence on record
that entries were made in revenue record
without any order passed by Assistant
Consolidation Officer in conciliation
proceeding. There is no error of law
apparent on the face of record.

7. The Consolidation authorities are
competent to decide right, title, interest
and liability in relation to the land of a
tenure holder. Tenure holder is defined
under Section 3 (11) of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holding Act, same is
being quoted below:-

"3 (11) 'Tenureholder' means a
(Bhumidhar with transferable rights or
Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights),
and includes-

(a) and asami,
(b) a Government lessee or Government
grantee, or
(c) a
Co-operative
farming
society
satisfying such conditions as may be
prescribed."

8. Admittedly, Sri Shanti Hanuman
Ji (Deity) is Bhumidhar of the land in
dispute. Bhumidhar is recorded through
Sarvakar-Haridas. Actually petitioner is
not disputing rights of Bhumidhar. He is
disputing rights of Sarvakarship, which
can be decided by Civil Court, and cannot
be
decided
by
the
Consolidation
authorities and as such Consolidation
authorities rightly did not decide the
question whether Sri Shanti Hanuman Ji,
who is Deity, is liable to be represented
through Haridas or through Ram Nagina
Das-petitioner.

9. My view is supported by the
judgment reported in 1971 R.D. 19,
Mahant Rama Kant Das v. Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
relevant
Paragraph of which is being reproduced
below:-

".....It is, therefore, clear that the
Consolidation authorities had jurisdiction
only to decide questions relating to the
rights of tenureholders. A dispute as to
who is the Mahant or Sarbakar of Math is
a dispute of a civil nature cognizable by a
Civil Court. It cannot be said to be a
dispute
relating
to
the
rights
of
2 All] Shakeel V. Superintendent District Jail, Ghaziabad and others
723
tenureholders. Upon the death of a
Mahant or Sarbakar no question of
mutation or succession to the right of the
tenureholder
arise.
In
my
opinion,
therefore, the dispute as to who is the
Mahant or Sarbakar of a Match cannot be
decided by the Consolidation authorities
and is totally beyond their jurisdiction."

10. In view of the discussions made
above, the impugned order was rightly
passed in accordance with law. Impugned
order does not suffer from any error of
law. Writ petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M.C. JAIN, J.
THE HON'BLE V.D. CHATURVEDI, J.

Shakeel

...Petitioner (In Jail)
Versus
Superintendent, District Jail, Ghaziabad
and others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.S. Misra
Sri C.K. Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Durga Prasad Srivastava
Sri K.C. Sinha
Sri R.K. Shukla
Sri Arvind Tripathi

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Writ of
Habeas Corpus-detention-on account of
involvement of cutting of electric wireon 21.5.05-representation made-7.9.05detaining
authority
through
Special
messenger on 27.09.05 sent to ministry
of Home Affairs-distence of the seat of
Central Government about 20 Km. For
interval between 28.9.05 to 3.10.05-No
plausible
explanation-held-vitiate
the
detention order.

Held: Para 6 & 7

It spills beyond comprehension that the
representation sent by the detaining
authority through special messenger on
27.9.2005 could take seven days in
reaching the concerned desk in the
Ministry of Home Affairs. Further, there
is
no
explanation
as
to
how
the
representation was dealt with on two
days, i.e., 4th and 5th October, 2005.
When
the
representation
from
the
District
Magistrate,
Noida
through
special messenger could be received by
the State Government at Lucknow on
28.9.2005, it would have definitely been
delivered in the Central Government
latest by 28th September 2005. The
distance from Gautam Budh Nagar to the
seat of Central Government was also
about
20
kilometers.
The
interval
between 28.9.2005 to 3.10.2005 goes by
default by plausible explanation.

The delay was unreasonable with no
explanation. Unexplained delay on the
part of the Central Government in
dealing with the representation of the
detenu with all promptitude vitiates the
detention order.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M.C. Jain, J.)

1. The petitioner has challenged the
detention order dated 31.8.2005, passed
by respondent no. 2, District Magistrate,
Gautam Budh Nagar, under Section 3 (2)
of the National Security Act 1980 and his
continued detention thereunder.

2. The grounds of detention are
contained in Annexure-2 to the writ
petition. The genesis was the arrest of the
petitioner on 21.5.2005 by the police
party when he was allegedly engaged with
his associates in cutting electricity wire at
about 11 P.M. A case crime no. 36 of