- (1.) Instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 2.11.2002 Annexure-1 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation in Case No. 50 under Section 48(3) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Raghoraj Singh v. State. The disputed land is situated in village Ahibaranpur, Pargana Nizamabad, Tehsil Sadar, district Azamgarh, which was notified for consolidation operation for the first time in the year 1955. An order was passed on 30.12.1959 and Raghoraj Singh was declared as sirdar and the entry in favour of Gaon Sabha was expunged. However, amaldaramad of the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 30.12.1959 was not carried out in the consolidation records and the village was denotified under Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Raghoraj Singh preferred an application for amaldaramad of the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 30.12.1959. Report was called for and the Consolidation Officer submitted his report dated 6.4.1980, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2. This report was forwarded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to the Deputy Director, Consolidation and the said report was approved vide order dated 24.4.1980 and the proposal of the S.O.C. for amaldaramad dated 30.12.1959 was carried out. A copy of order dated 24.4.1980 is annexed as Annexure-3.
(2.) Subsequently, entries were also made in khatauni of 1388 fasli to 1393 fasli of village Ahibaranpur over Khata No. 43. The State Government made another notification under Section 4A of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act notifying the village for the consolidation operation with effect from 17.4.1981. Proceeding under Section 122B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and Rule 115C of the Rules framed under the said Act were initiated against Raghoraj Singh in respect of the land in dispute but the said proceedings were dropped by order of the Assistant Collector/Tehsildar Sadar, Azamgarh dated 3.5.1985, since fresh consolidation had commenced. Consequently, name of Raghoraj Singh could not be recorded in the Revenue record and he died leaving the Petitioners as his heir. After death of Raghoraj Singh, the Petitioners came to know at a subsequent stage that their names are not recorded over the land in question. An application was filed on 15.5.1998 before the District Deputy Director, Consolidation, Azamgarh. On receipt of the aforesaid application, the S.O.C./Consolidation Officer was directed to enquire the matter and report be submitted on 19.5.1998. Report was submitted on 31.8.1998 with a recommendation that a dispute in respect of only a part of the land is pending. Copy of the report is annexed as Annexure-8. The Consolidation Officer requested the District Government counsel Revenue, Azamgarh to give his opinion in this matter vide letter dated 23.2.2000. Original records were sent to him. The Deputy Director, Consolidation Revenue after examining the entire record arrived at a conclusion that in the previous consolidation proceedings Raghoraj Singh was declared to be the owner in possession. Incidentally, a second consolidation has commenced and the name of the Petitioners have not been entered so far. The Consolidation Officer had raised a baseless doubt whereas legally the name of the Petitioner is liable to be recorded till the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation during the first consolidation proceedings is not challenged and quashed. Letter of the D.G.C. Revenue dated 31.3.2000 is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The Consolidation Officer submitted his report on 21.7.2000 to the Deputy Director, Consolidation seeking permission to incorporate the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 30.12.1959. However, instead of granting permission to abide by the opinion of the D.G.C. Revenue and the recommendation of the Consolidation Officer, a reference under Section 48(3) of C.H. Act Raghoraj Singh v. State was made. The Petitioners submitted all the documents and the necessary evidence staking their rightful claim. Reference was preferred to Respondent No. 1 District Deputy Director. Consolidation, Azamgarh, which was rejected by means of the impugned order. The ground of rejection is that the land in question is a public utility land and therefore the Petitioners can not be recorded.
(3.) Gaon Sabha has filed its counter-affidavit and has only tried to reiterate what the Respondent No. 1 has stated in his order. Though, counter-affidavit has been filed but it has failed to substantiate that the land in question is for public utility within the meaning of Section 132 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. In fact, no appropriate reply has been given to the various questions raised in the writ petition.;