# Ramraj v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Basti and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 756
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002
- **Bench:** R.H. Zaidi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramraj-v-dy-director-of-consolidation-basti-and-others-39040
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Consolidation of Holdings Act- Section
52- in view of the provisions of section
52 of the Act and Rule 109-A, the
authorities mentioned in Rule 109-A, will
have
the
jurisdiction
to
decide
all
questions
which
arose
in
those
proceedings.

Held in para

Further, the fraud and forgery committed
was not only against the petitioner but
also
upon
the
Court.
The
court,
therefore, had the jurisdiction to deal
with the matter and decide the same.
The scope of Rule 109-A is quite wide.
For the cases covered by the said rule,
the denotification under section 52 of
the Act is of no consequence as by the
order passed in the said proceedings, the
consolidation authorities if they are
present in the district, shall be giving
effect to the orders passed by the
competent consolidation authorities and
for
that
purpose
the
consolidation
operators shall be deemed not to have
been closed as provided under sub
section 2 of section 52 of the Act. In
view of the aforesaid discussion, both
these petitions deserve to be allowed.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002

4. The petitioner states that initially
he was appointed for a period of three
years. The salary of the petitioner was
increased from Rs.299/- to Rs.560/- per
month w.e.f., 1.12.1991. In paragraph '7'
to the writ petition, it is stated that all of a
sudden, the boring of the Tube-well, on
which the petitioner was working, failed
and as such the services of the petitioner
were terminated by the impugned order,
dated 17.6.1994 by giving him one
month's salary in lieu of notice. The
contention of the petitioner is that 25
Tube-well operators, who are junior to
him, have been retained in service
whereas his services have been terminated
and as such the impugned order is illegal,
arbitrary and has also stated that there are
several Tube-wells where the posts of
Tube-well operators are vacant and the
petitioner can be appointed on any of such
Tube-wells.

5. The standing counsel has
contended that the services of part-time
Tube-well operators are not transferable.
He submits that the service of the
petitioner have been terminated according
to the terms and conditions contained in
the letter of appointment. He further
contends that since the petitioner was not
a regular full time operator, he was not
entitled to salary of full time Tube-well
operator. Lastly, it has been submitted
that since the petitioner's appointment was
on a particular tube-well, there is no
question of seniority or juniority. Since
the Tube-well operators are appointed
against a particular tube-well, no question
of seniority involved in the case.

6. From Annexure-2 to the writ
petition, it appears that petitioner's service
has come to an end on the failure of the
Tube-well in pursuance of Government
notification issued in 1953. I have perused
the impugned order and there appears to
be no illegality in the same. On the
closure of the place of employment, a
person, who is employed particularly for
that place, will not continue.

7. Apart from the above, the
petitioner is a workman. He has not
produced any material before this Court to
establish the factum that there are several
vacancies in other tube-wells which are in
operation. He has also not filed any
seniority list in support of his contention
that juniors to him are working. The
appointment of the petitioner was a fixed
term appointment for three years and he
continued thereafter in the exigency of
work. It does not vest him with any legal
right to continue at the place of
employment on the failure of the Tubewell itself.

8. In view of the above facts, the
petition fails and is dismissed. There is no
order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD OCTOBER 4, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.H. ZAIDI, J.

Civil Misc. writ petition no. 8683 of 1982

Ramraj

...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.D. Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Ramraj V. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Basti and others
757
Consolidation of Holdings Act- Section
52- in view of the provisions of section
52 of the Act and Rule 109-A, the
authorities mentioned in Rule 109-A, will
have
the
jurisdiction
to
decide
all
questions
which
arose
in
those
proceedings.

Held in para

Further, the fraud and forgery committed
was not only against the petitioner but
also
upon
the
Court.
The
court,
therefore, had the jurisdiction to deal
with the matter and decide the same.
The scope of Rule 109-A is quite wide.
For the cases covered by the said rule,
the denotification under section 52 of
the Act is of no consequence as by the
order passed in the said proceedings, the
consolidation authorities if they are
present in the district, shall be giving
effect to the orders passed by the
competent consolidation authorities and
for
that
purpose
the
consolidation
operators shall be deemed not to have
been closed as provided under sub
section 2 of section 52 of the Act. In
view of the aforesaid discussion, both
these petitions deserve to be allowed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.H. Zaidi, J.)

1. In both these petitions common
questions of law and fact are involved and
parties are also the same. They were,
therefore, heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
Writ petition no. 8683 of 1982 shall be
the leading case.

2. By means of this petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, petitioner prays for issuance of a
writ , order or direction in the nature of
certiorari
quashing
the
order
dated
8.7.1992 passed by the respondent no. 1
allowing the revision filed by the
respondent no. 3, under section 48 of the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for
short ' the Act'.
3. The relevant facts of the case
giving rise to the present petition, in brief,
are that in the basic year khata no. 137 of
village Shivasara, district Basti was
recorded in the name of the petitioner.
Respondent no. 3 filed an objection
claiming co-tenancy rights in the said
khata. Objection filed by the respondent
no. 3 was contested and opposed by the
petitioner who pleaded that respondent
no. 3 had no share in the said khata.
Parties in support of their case produced
evidence. The Consolidation Officer after
hearing the parties and perusing the
material
on
record,
dismissed
the
objection filed by the respondent no. 3 on
31.7.1976. The order passed by the
Consolidation Officer became final as the
validity of the same was not challenged
by the respondent no. 3 by filing appeal or
revision. In lieu of khata no. 137, the
petitioner was allotted chak no. 112.

4. In the same village, there were
khata nos. 46, 71, 103 and 134 which
were recorded jointly in the names of the
petitioner and the respondent no. 3 as well
as in the name of one Mahadeo. The
petitioner as he was a preferential heir on
the basis of the following pedigree,
claimed the share of Mahadeo as his
whereabouts were not known for more
than seven years and he was, in the law,
presumed to have died civil death. The
pedigree of the family is given below :

Laxman
/
 ----------------------------------------------------
 /

/

 /
Ram Khelawan Ram Niranjan
 Ram Jas
 /

/

 /
Mahadeo

Jamuna

 Ram Raj
 /

 (petitioner)
Abhai Narain
(Respondent no. 3)
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002

5. The petitioner on the basis of the
above noted pedigree, as stated above,
applied for mutation of his name in place
of Mahadeo. The application of the
petitioner
was
contested
by
the
respondent no. 3 who claimed right in the
land of Mahadeo. The factum of death of
Mahadeo was, however, not challenged.
The parties produced evidence. The
consolidation
officer
dismissed
the
objection filed by the petitioner as well as
of the respondent no. 3. The said appeals
were decided in terms of the compromise
by the Settlement Officer Consolidation
on
11.11.1976.
Under
the
said
compromise, it was conceded that khata
no. 137 belonged to the petitioner
exclusively. After the aforesaid order was
passed, it is pleaded that the respondent
no. 3 colluded with the officials of the
department and also added khata no.137
in the compromise behind the back of the
petitioner. It was on 28.5.1977 that the
village where the land in dispute is
situate, was denotified under section 52 of
the Act. It has also been pleaded that after
doing the forgery and interpolation in the
compromise , the respondent no. 3 made
an appliction before the Consolidation
Officer for giving effect to the order dated
11.11.1976. The Consolidation officer, it
is stated, without giving any notice to the
petitioner, directed to give effect to the
said order on 31.7.1979. As soon as the
petitioner came to know about the said
order,
he
filed
an
application
on
15.9.1979
stating
that
fraud
was
committed by the respondent no. 3 upon
the court and upon him by committing
interpolation in the compromise, referred
to above. The petitioner also filed an
appeal
against
the
order
of
the
Consolidation
Officer
before
the
settlement officer consolidation. The
settlement officer consolidation directed
not to give effect to the Parwana
Amaldaramad. The respondent no. 3 filed
an objection before the settlement officer
consolidation contending that the village
where the land in dispute was situated,
was denotified, therefore, the settlement
officer consolidation had no jurisdiction
to proceed with the matter. On the
question of jurisdiction, a preliminary
issue was framed, which was decided by
the Settlement Officer Consolidation in
favour of the petitioner and it was held
that he had the jurisdiction to decide the
case on merits in exercise of powers
under Rule 109-A read with section 52 of
the Act, by order dated 15.8.1980.
Challenging the validity of the said order,
the respondent no. 3 filed a revision
before
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation allowed the said revision
by order dated 18.9.1980. It may be stated
that in the meanwhile the petitioner filed
civil misc. writ petition no. 10620 of
1980, referred to above, challenging the
validity of the orders dated 31.7.1979 and
18.9.1980, referred to above, which was
admitted and interim order was also
granted in favour of the petitioner, which
is connected with this petition.

6. The petitioner also filed an appeal
against the order of the Consolidation
Officer
dated
31.7.1979
before
the
Settlement Officer Consolidation. The
Settlement Officer consolidation after
hearing the parties recorded clear and
categorical finding to the effect that fraud
was committed by the respondent no. 3
upon the Court, allowed the appeal and
remanded the case to the consolidation
officer for decision afresh, by his order
dated
19.11.1981.
Challenging
the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Ramraj V. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Basti and others
759
validity of the said order, the respondent
no. 3 filed a revision before the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, which was
allowed on 8.7.1982. Hence the present
petition.

7. On this petition, notices were
issued to the contesting respondents by
this Court. On receipt of the notices, the
contesting respondent no. 3 filed a
counter affidavit denying the facts stated
in the writ petition. The petitioner has also
filed a rejoinder affidavit controverting
and denying the facts stated in the counter
affidavit and reiterating and reasserting
the facts stated in the writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently urged that since the matter
arose out of the proceedings under Rule
109-A read with Section 52 of the Act, all
questions
arising
out
of
the
said
proceedings shall be considered by the
authorities dealing with the application
under the said rule and section. It is not
necessary to file separate suit for the said
purpose.
The
contesting
respondent
wanted the authorities concerned to give
effect to the forged and fictitious orders
and
obtained
orders
from
the
consolidation officer in his favour after
the village was denotified under section
52 of the Act. The moment petitioner
came to know about the said fact, he filed
an application stating that the compromise
which was entered into between the
parties, was forged by the respondent in
collusion with the authorities of the
department. The said question could be
properly investigated by the authorities
concerned.
The
settlement
officer
consolidation was, thus right to decide the
question of jurisdiction in favour of the
petitioner.

9. Section 52 of the Act and Rule
109-A read as under (only relevant
quoted) :-

"52. Close of consolidation operations-
(1) As soon a may be, after fresh maps
and records have been prepared under sub
section (i) of Section 27, the State
Government shall issue a notification in
the official Gazette that the consolidation
operations have been closed in the unit
and the village or villages forming a part
of the unit shall then cease to be under
consolidation operations:

Provided that the issue of the notification
under this section shall not affect the
powers of the State Government to fix,
distribute and recover the cost of
operations under this Act.

(1-A) The notification issued under sub
section (1) shall be published also in a
daily newspaper having circulation in the
area and in such other manner as may be
considered proper.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub section (1), any order passed by a
court of competent jurisdiction in cases of
writs filed under the provisions of the
Constitution of India, or in cases or
proceedings pending under this Act on the
date of issue of the notification under sub
section (1) shall be given effect to by such
authorities, as may be prescribed and the
consolidation operations shall, for that
purpose, be deemed to have not been
closed."

"109-A. Section 52 (2)- (1) Orders passed
in cases covered by sub section (2) of
section 52 shall be given effect to by the
consolidation authorities, authorized in
this behalf under sub section 2 of section
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
42. In case there be no such authority the
Assistant Collector, incharge of sub
division,
the
Tehsildar,
the
NaibTahsilkdar, the Supervisor, Kanungo and
the Lekhpal of the area to which the case
relates shall, respectively, perform the
functions and discharge the duties of the
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation,
Consolidation
Officer,
the
Assistant
Consolidation Officer, the Consolidator
and
the
Consolidation
Lekhpal
respectively for the purpose of giving
effect to the orders aforesaid.

(2) If for the purpose of giving effect to
any order referred to in sub rule (1) it
becomes necessary to reallocate affected
chaks, necessary orders may be passed by
the
Consolidation
Officer,
or
the
Tahsildar, as the case may be, after
affording proper opportunity of hearing to
the parties concerned.

(3) Any person aggrieved by the order of
the
Consolidation
Officer,
or
the
Tahsildar, as the case may be, may, within
15 days of the order passed under sub rule
2, file an appeal before the Settlement
Officer, Consolidation, or the Assistant
Collector incharge of the sub division, as
the case may be, who shall decide the
appeal
after
affording
reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the parties
concerned, which shall be final.

(4) In case delivery of possession
becomes necessary as a result of orders
passed under sub rule 2 or sub rule 3 as
the case may be, the provisions of Rules
55 and 56 shall, mutates mutandis, be
followed."

10. In the present case, the
resp;ondent no. 3 claimed that the
compromise relied upon by him was
entered into between the parties before the
village was denotified under section 52 of
the Act, was not given effect to in the
revenue papers and prayed for giving
effect to the said compromise before the
Consolidation Officer under Rule 109-A.
The consolidation officer without giving
any notice to the petitioner directed to
give effect to the said compromise vide
his order dated 31.7.1979. As soon as the
petitioner came to know about the said
order,
he
filed
an
application
on
15.9.1979 stating that fraud and forgery
was committed by the respondent no. 3
upon the court and upon him. The order
passed by the Consolidation Officer to
give effect to the forged compromise was,
therefore,
liable
to
be
recalled.
Simultaneously, the petitioner also filed
an appeal against the ex parte order of the
Consolidation
Officer
before
the
settlement officer consolidation. The
settlement officer consolidation after
going through the material on record
directed not to give effect to the Parwana
Amaldaramad. The respondent no. 3
before the settlement officer consolidation
contended he had no jurisdiction to decide
the appeal. On the objection raised by the
respondent no. 3 a preliminary issue was
framed regarding jurisdiction of the
settlement officer consolidation, which
was decided in favour of the petitioner on
15.10.1980. Against the said order, the
respondent no. 3 filed a revision which
was allowed by the Deputy Director of
consolidation by order dated 18.,9.1980
against which writ petition no. 10620 of
1980,
connected
with
this
petition,
challenging the orders dated 31.7.1979
and 18.9.1980 has been filed in which on
28.11.1980 the following interim order
was granted by this court -
"Issue notice.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] The State of U.P. and others V. Om Prakash Verma
761
Until further orders of this court, the
operation of the order dated 18.9.80
passed
by
the
Joint
Director
of
Consolidation, Basti shall remain stayed."

11. In the appeal filed by the
petitioner against the order passed by the
Consolidation Officer on the preliminary
issue, i.e., the question of jurisdiction, the
settlement officer consolidation after
hearing the parties recorded clear and
categorical finding to the effect that fraud
was committed by the respondent no. 3
upon the court, allowed the appeal and
remanded the case to the consolidation
officer for decision afresh, by his order
dated
19.11.1981.
Challenging
the
validity of the said order, the respondent
no. 3 filed a revision before the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, which was
allowed on 8.7.1982, hence the petitioner
filed writ petition no. 8683 of 1982.

12. It is evident from the facts stated
above that the proceedings under Rule
109-A started after denotification of the
village and that the compromise was
entered into between the parties before the
village was denotified, therefore, in view
of the provisions of section 52 of the Act
and Rule 109 A, referred to above, the
authorities mentioned in Rule 109-A will
have the jurisdiction to decide all
questions
which
arose
in
those
proceedings. The view taken to the
contrary by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation is manifestly erroneous and
illegal. It is contrary to the provisions of
Rule 109-A. Further, the fraud and
forgery committed was not only against
the petitioner but also upon the court. The
court, therefore, had the jurisdiction to
deal with the matter and decide the same.
The scope of Rule 109 A is quite wide.
For the cases covered by the said rule, the
denotification under section 52 of the Act
is of no consequence as by the order
passed in the said proceedings, the
consolidation authorities if they are
present in the district, shall be giving
effect to the orders passed by the
competent consolidation authorities and
for
that
purpose
the
consolidation
operations shall be deemed not to have
been closed as provided under sub section
2 of section 52 of the Act. In view of the
aforesaid discussion, both these petitions
deserve to be allowed.

13. The abovenoted writ petitions
succeed and are allowed. The orders dated
31.7.1979, 18.9.1980 and 8.7.1982 are
quashed. The case is remanded to the
Deputy Director of Consolidation for
decision afresh in the light of the
observations made above.

14. A copy of this order may be
placed on the record of connected writ
petition.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 8.10.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 308 of 1998

The State of U.P. and others ...Appellants
Versus
Om Prakash Verma
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Sabhajit Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.N. Singh
Sri A.P. Sahi
Sri G.K. Malviya