# Shoeb Alam and others v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 603
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-11-17
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2501 of 1994
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shoeb-alam-and-others-v-the-deputy-director-of-consolidation-and-others-40271
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Consolidation of Holdings Act-S.9-Writ
Jurisdiction-Exercise of-Petitioners made
persistent attempts to continue their
illegal
possession
over
gaon
sabha
property-present
petition
again
is
desperate attempt to encroach upon
court's precious time by vexations plea
which did not find favour with this
Court-Hence
costs
of
Rs.10,000/-
imposed on petitioners-held liable to pay
mesne profits.

Held: Para 6

Before parting, I feel constrained to
notice that in the instant case, there is
enough indication that the petitioners
have
made
persistent
attempts
to
continue their illegal possession over the
Gaon Sabha Property despite repeated
failures upto the Apex Court. The present
petition is again a desperate attempt to
encroach upon Court's precious time by
vexatious plea which did not find favour
with this Court. In my considered view, it
is a pre-eminently fit case in which the
petitioners should be visited with costs
which I quantify at Rs.10,000/-. The
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
604
petitioners are directed to handover
possession of the property of Gaon
Sabha
forthwith
and
till
actual
possession is handed over to the Gaon
Sabha, the petitioners would be liable to
pay
compensation
for
their
illegal
possession for the entire period the land
in
question
remained
in
illegal
possession of the petitioners. It may be
clarified that in case any such application
is
filed
by
the
Gaon
Sabha
for
determining
the
question
of
actual
amount of mesne profits before the
District Magistrate, the same shall be
decided in accordance with law within a
period not exceeding six months from
the date of filing of such application by
the Gaon Sabha.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Natha Ram Pathak V. Director, Prashikshan Evam Sevayojan U.P. and others
603
shall be decided within three weeks from
the date it is filed by the respondent.
Thus, if the representation has not been
filed by the petitioner within two weeks
as was required under order of this Court
dated 17.11.2003, the further direction for
deciding the representation within three
weeks seized to mandatory and it is open
to authority concerned to decide the
representation without there being any
time limit for the same.

5. However, in the opinion of the
Court, the order dated 17.11.2003, passed
by this Court, cannot be read as limitation
prescribing limitation for filing the
representation nor it is open to Director to
reject the representation on the ground
that the same has not been filed beyond
two weeks.

6. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, the order passed by the Director,
Prashikshan
Evam
Sevayojan,
U.P.
Lucknow dated 15th July, 2004 is hereby
set aside and the matter is remanded to the
Director, Prashikshan Evam Sevayojan,
U.P.
Lucknow
to
decide
the
representation
afresh
strictly
in
accordance with law at the earliest
possible.

7. It is needless to point out that the
Director shall afford opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned before
taking a decision and shall pass a
reasoned order.

With the above observations, writ
petition stands disposed of.
Petition Disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2004

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2501 of 1994

Shoeb Alam and others ...Petitioners
Versus
The Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri R.N. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Singh
Sri S.N. Singh
Sri K.B. Garg
S.C.

Consolidation of Holdings Act-S.9-Writ
Jurisdiction-Exercise of-Petitioners made
persistent attempts to continue their
illegal
possession
over
gaon
sabha
property-present
petition
again
is
desperate attempt to encroach upon
court's precious time by vexations plea
which did not find favour with this
Court-Hence
costs
of
Rs.10,000/-
imposed on petitioners-held liable to pay
mesne profits.

Held: Para 6

Before parting, I feel constrained to
notice that in the instant case, there is
enough indication that the petitioners
have
made
persistent
attempts
to
continue their illegal possession over the
Gaon Sabha Property despite repeated
failures upto the Apex Court. The present
petition is again a desperate attempt to
encroach upon Court's precious time by
vexatious plea which did not find favour
with this Court. In my considered view, it
is a pre-eminently fit case in which the
petitioners should be visited with costs
which I quantify at Rs.10,000/-. The
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
604
petitioners are directed to handover
possession of the property of Gaon
Sabha
forthwith
and
till
actual
possession is handed over to the Gaon
Sabha, the petitioners would be liable to
pay
compensation
for
their
illegal
possession for the entire period the land
in
question
remained
in
illegal
possession of the petitioners. It may be
clarified that in case any such application
is
filed
by
the
Gaon
Sabha
for
determining
the
question
of
actual
amount of mesne profits before the
District Magistrate, the same shall be
decided in accordance with law within a
period not exceeding six months from
the date of filing of such application by
the Gaon Sabha.

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

1. Impugned herein is the orderdated
28.5.1993
passed
by
Deputy
Director
Consolidation
by
which
compromise order dated 17.2.1975 in case
no. 1129 under section 9 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act passed by
Asstt. Consolidation officer was set aside
and plot Nos. 5622 and 5393 was directed
to be recorded as Gaon Sabha property
while relegating the matter to the
Consolidation officer for disposal afresh.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. I have also
been taken through the impugned order.

3. The learned counsel for the
petitioner assailed the impugned order on
the ground that it was passed exparte and
the finding that the compromise was a
forged one and both father of the
petitioners and then Pradhan of the village
made a collusive combination cannot be
sustained. The learned counsel for the
petitioner canvassed that earlier there was
limitation operating in relation to right to
claim
property
but
subsequently,
amendment was made by which limitation
came to be obliterated. Per contra, Sri
A.K. Singh learned counsel for the Opp.
Parties contended that the property in
question vested in Gaon Sabha and as a
matter of fact, father of the petitioners 1
and 2 had preferred a writ petition
impugning order dated 11.2.1993 which
culminated in being dismissed by means
of order of the Court dated 17.1.2000.
Special leave to appeal preferred by the
father of petitioners 1 and 2 also ended up
in dismissal. It has been lastly submitted
by the learned counsel that writ petition is
a crude attempt on the part of the
petitioners to grab the Gaon Sabha
property.

4. From a perusal of record, it would
transpire that it has not been gainsaid that
plots in question were Gaon Sabha
property. Initially, objections were filed
by the father of petitioners. Subsequently,
it is claimed that the father of the
petitioners and the then Gram Pradhan
entered into compromise and on the basis
of the said compromise, the Asstt.
Consolidation officer passed the order
dated 17.2.1975. It is this compromise,
which was set aside by means of
impugned order. Since it is admitted
position on record that property belonged
to Gaon Sabha, it has not been established
by any logic or reasons by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioners or their father could acquire
Gaon Sabha land on the basis of any right
or that by any reckoning, they had
acquired any Bhumidhari rights over the
property in question. The plea of adverse
possession in view of admitted position
that property belonged to Gaon Sabha,
does not hold water. Besides, it may be
noticed that Section 11 C of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act casts a
duty upon the Consolidation authorities to
protect the interest of Gaon Sabha. In the
light of the above provisions, the question
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Shoeb Alam and others V. D.D.C. Azamgarh and others
605
 of compromise or consequent order of
the Asstt. Consolidation Officer was
considered and jettisoned by this Court in
its decision 17.1.2000 and it cannot be reagitated by resort to the point of limitation
which in my considered view is a
metricious submission to prop up a
second inning in this Court. It is crystal
clear from the provisions of the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act that question of limitation
cannot be called in aid in relation to
property which is admittedly Gaon Sabha
property. The learned counsel has not
been able to bear out that any limitation
has been fixed for acquiring any right on
the Gaon Sabha property on the basis of
adverse possession. The law is too settled
to be ignored on this count and I do not
propose to make an idle parade of
learning by dwelling upon this aspect at
prolix length also considering that the
matter journeyed upto Apex Court but
with no success.

5. In the above conspectus, I am of
the considered opinion that in view of
duties
cast
on
the
Consolidation
Authorities in Section 11-C of the
U.P.C.H. Act, the Deputy Director
Consolidation
rightly
passed
the
impugned
order
and
it
cannot
be
questioned or assailed as no material
irregularity or illegality has been pointed
out. Petition fails and is dismissed
accordingly.

6. Before parting, I feel constrained
to notice that in the instant case, there is
enough indication that the petitioners
have made persistent attempts to continue
their illegal possession over the Gaon
Sabha Property despite repeated failures
upto the Apex Court. The present petition
is again a desperate attempt to encroach
upon Court's precious time by vexatious
plea which did not find favour with this
Court. In my considered view, it is a preeminently fit case in which the petitioners
should be visited with costs which I
quantify at Rs.10,000/-. The petitioners
are directed to handover possession of the
property of Gaon Sabha forthwith and till
actual possession is handed over to the
Gaon Sabha, the petitioners would be
liable to pay compensation for their illegal
possession for the entire period the land in
question remained in illegal possession of
the petitioners. It may be clarified that in
case any such application is filed by the
Gaon Sabha for determining the question
of actual amount of mesne profits before
the District Magistrate, the same shall be
decided in accordance with law within a
period not exceeding six months from the
date of filing of such application by the
Gaon Sabha.
Petition Dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 912 of 1991

Pappu Singh and another
...Appellants
Versus
Ravindra Nath Dubey and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri R.B. Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.K. Tripathi
Sri Saral Srivastava
Sri A.K. Banerji
Sri S.K. Srivastava

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-S. 149-Liability
of Insurance Company-Breach of PolicyNo evidence, to show that owner of
tractor handed over tractor to 'P' for