- (1.) Delay condoned. Shri Ramroop, the then Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Dattipur violated the trust reposed in him by the public and manipulated allotment of two parcels of land to his own daughter-in-law, Smt. Kalawati Devi (mother of the petitioner herein). After 29 years, Consolidation Officer, Gianpur passed order dated 12.2.1997 for recording the name of Smt. Kalawati Devi in the revenue records. For this purpose, he relied upon the statement made by Shri Ramroop. Fortunately for the public and unfortunately for Smt. Kalawati Devi, respondent No. 3 Murali Dhar, who is also resident of Village Dattipur, took up the matter before the higher authorities and succeeded in convincing Collector, Bhadohi that issue of allotment of land by the Gaon Sabha headed by Ramroop needs a detailed inquiry. The Collector accepted the prayer made by respondent No. 3 for transfer of the case and passed order dated 26.8.2009, the relevant portion of which reads as under: Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused file. Learned counsel for applicant has contended that under Rule 65(1)(A) of the Consolidation Rules, District Deputy Director, Consolidation/Collector has got the jurisdiction to call for the file from the Court of Deputy Director, Consolidation and disposed of the same by transferring to some other Court for disposal to get the same disposed of itself. List of the orders of the Consolidation Officer passed in the District on the land of Gram Sabha on the basis of forged and fabricated leases in the referred case in which plot No. 872, area 3100 situated in this village is recorded Usar in the name of Kalawati Devi who happens to be mother of Dinanath, from which it becomes evident that case relates to the grabbing land of Gram Sabha. Restoration happens to be a separate proceedings, in which separate order is desired.
(2.) The petitioner challenged order of the Collector in C.M.W.P. No. 47176/2009 mainly on the ground that without setting aside order dated 15.6.2009, the Collector was not justified in transferring the application filed by respondent No. 3. The learned Single Judge could see through the game of Ramroop and like and dismissed the writ petition by recording the following reasons: Copy of patta has not been annexed alongwith the writ petition. On enquiry from the Court as to why since 1968 till 1997, i.e. for 29 years, no efforts were made by the petitioner or mother of the petitioner to get her name mutated in the revenue records, no reply could be given by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 stated that mother of the petitioner Smt. Kalawati Devi was daughter-in-law of Ram Roop, the Pradhan, who signed the patta and gave statement before C.O. It has further been stated that the said Pradhan also executed ante dated pattas in favour of his sons and other family members. It is quite clear that as until 1969 prior permission of S.D.O. was not required, hence the Pradhan manufactured the pattas of Gaon Sabha land and antedated the same to a date prior to 1969. There is absolutely no reason that in case patta had in fact been executed, the names of lessees would not have been mutated in the revenue records. Prima facie it appears to be loot of the public property. Collector is the best person to look into this matter. If the Collector finds that no patta was executed in 1968 and Ram Roop and his family members usurped the property of the Gaon Sabha on the ground that prior to 1969, he was Pradhan, then stern action must be taken/recommended to be taken against the C.O. who passed the order on 12.2.1997. Collector may also reopen all such cases in the District in which Gaon Sabha property was mutated in the name of private persons in the similar manner. If patta is executed, then immediately name of the allottee is mutated in the revenue records. Few months delay in getting the names mutated in the revenue records on the basis of pattas is understandable but few decades or few years delay is not at all understandable. The experience of the Court is that during consolidation proceedings, Consolidation Authorities/Officers liberally donate the Gaon Sabha properties to influential/resourceful persons by passing such orders as has been passed in the instant case. Accordingly, all the Collectors of all the Districts in the State are directed to reopen such cases where names of private persons are entered in revenue records on the basis of old pattas or adverse possession over Gaon Sabha land and correct the illegality by taking suo motu action. However, no orders shall be set aside without issuing notice and hearing affected persons. If notice through registered post is not served then it may be served through publication in the newspaper also. If it is found that some Consolidation Officer or S.O.C. or D.D.C. has done similar thing, then the action must be proposed to be taken against him also.
(3.) We have heard Shri S.R. Singh, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner and perused the record. In our view, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. In a matter like the present one, the Court cannot be a silent spectator and is bound to perform its constitutional duty for ensuring that the public property is not frittered by unscrupulous public land are properly enquired into and appropriate remedial action taken.;