- (1.) ASHOK Bhusan, J. These writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts hence they are decided by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999 is being treated as leading writ petition. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties in leading writ petition as well as in most of the other writ petitions. Both the parties agree that the writ petition be decided finally at this stage. Consequently the writ petitions are being decided finally.
(2.) I have heard Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, senior Advocate in leading writ petition No. 4934 of 1999 and in some other writ petitions as well as M/s. S. C. Varma, Prakash Chandra, N. K. Srivastava, Arjun Singhal, W. H. Khan and Sri H. M. B. Sinha for the petitioners in their respective cases and Chief Standing Counsel Sri Ashok Mehta and Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned standing Counsel. All these writ petitions arise out of the Chak allotment proceedings under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as the 1953 Act ). All the writ petitioners pray for quashing of the order dated 22-9- 1998 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffar Nagar by which Chaks allotted to the petitioners have been affected. Although the facts and circumstances in which these writ petitions have been filed are more or less common but to understand the controversy in these cases the facts of leading writ petition No. 4934 of 1999 are being noted in detail. The facts of leading writ petition No. 4934 of 1999 will also disclose the nature of controversy and the contents of the order passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation with regard to all the petitioners. Consolidation operation started in village Bhura, Pargana and Tehsil Kerana, District Muzaffar Nagar after issuance of the notification under Section 4 (2) of the 1953 Act which was published on 9-7-1979. Along with village Bhura there were two other villages namely, Pahar Mazar and Charao with regard to which common Consolidation Scheme was framed. In writ petition No. 4934 of 1999 there are two petitioners namely, Ram Kumar and Kabool. It has been stated that by an order dated 24-1-1995 a reference under Section 48 (3) of the 1953 Act was accepted for giving effect to the order dated 13-11- 1995 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revisions No. 144, 148 and 145. It has been stated that by the aforesaid order dated 13-11-1995 partition was directed. While approving reference vide order dated 24-1-1995, it has been stated that the petitioner No. 1 was allotted plot No. 2681/2 area 1 Bigha, 14 Biswas and 4 Dhoor which was shown to be Bachat plot in Chart appended with the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It has been stated that the aforesaid order dated 24-1- 1996 became final and no appeal or revision was filed. It has been stated that in the writ petition that the District Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned judgment dated 22-9-1998 has made changes in the chak allotted to the petitioners and other persons. It has been stated that by the order dated 22-9-1998 the District Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken away several plots allotted to the petitioners by order dated 24-1-1996. It has been stated that there is no discussion in the judgment dated 20-9-1998 nor any reason has been given for taking away the plots allotted to the petitioners vide earlier order dated 24-1-1996. It has been specifically stated in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that before passing the order dated 20-9-1998 petitioners were not given any kind of opportunity of hearing nor any notice was issued to the petitioners. With aforesaid allegations the writ petition was filed. Three counter affidavits have been filed in the aforesaid case by the respondents. One counter affidavit has been sworn by Rishipal Singh, Gram Pradhan of village Bhura dated 17-10-2000. The aforesaid counter affidavits has been filed through the standing Counsel of the State. Two more counter affidavit have been filed by Ram Mangal Singh Settlement Officer of Consolidation Nagar dated 29-9- 2000 and 1-12-2000. In the first counter affidavit of Ram Mangal Singh dated 29-9-2000 (hereinafter referred as the first counter affidavit) parawise reply to the writ petition have been given. In second counter affidavit dated 1-12-2000 (hereinafter referred to second counter affidavit) along with the general facts, chart prepared on the basis of the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities at different stages have been filed. In the counter affidavit of Gram Pradhan it has been stated that large number of plots whose details have been mentioned in paragraph 11 have been allotted to different tenure holders although the said plots were not included in the Consolidation proceedings. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that number of plots were excluded from the Consolidation whose details were published in H. C. Form 2-A. It has been mentioned that large number of plots as referred in Section 132 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 were not included in the Consolidation and were cut of the Consolidation within the meaning of Section 3 (2) Explanation of the 1953 Act. The charts given in paragraph 7 show that large number of plots were mentioned as pasture land, Johar (Talab), 'rasta', Ushar Banjan. It has been stated in paragraph 9 of the second counter affidavit that 27-4-0 area of plot No. 230 Village Pahar Mazar was recorded as Pasture land plot No. 934 of village Bhura area 164-0-10 was recorded as pasture land, plot No 2681 area 1-6-0 and plot No. 931 area 13-3-0. Plot No. 1228 area 5-11-1, plot No. 741 area 15-18-0. Plot No. 2645 area 5-2-7 and plot No. 2681 area 14-0-0 were recorded as Ushar, total area which was recorded in basis year Khatauni in Class III, IV and VI was 247-4-18. It has been further stated in the counter affidavit of the Gaon Sabha that the land which was out of Consolidation, has wrongly been allotted in Chak of different tenure holders. It has been pleaded that the aforesaid land belong to Gaon Sabha and the same can never become part of the Consolidation proceedings nor could have been included in the Consolidation. It has been stated that the Consolidation authorities in connivance with the petitioners and some powerful land Mafias belonging to the family of Khajana committed fraud. It has been stated that the heirs and legal representatives of one Khajana by manipulation got allotment of major share of aforementioned land belong to Gaon Sabha in connivance with local authorities and Consolidation authorities. Paragraph 11 again given details of various Gaon Sabha land allotted to different tenure holders. Paragraph 12 contains details of allotment of aforesaid Gaon Sabha land to persons who do not belong to family of Khajana. In paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit it has been specifically stated that these land were excluded from the Consolidation operation. No one filed any objection on the statement of principles by which the aforesaid land were excluded from the Consolidation. It has been pleaded that the finality was attached under Section 11-A of the 1953 Act on the aforesaid statement of principles and no question in respect of claim of land and valuation of the aforesaid which ought to have been raised under Section 9, could be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the Consolidation proceedings in counter affidavit I and II similar allegations have been mentioned. It has been stated in paragraph 18 of the second counter affidavit that area 182 Bighas 2 Biswa and 7 Biswansi of public utility land have been illegally allotted in favour of several tenure holders who are petitioners before this Court. It is stated that the aforesaid land, was left out of Consolidation without finding any exchange valuation at the time of preparation of statement of principles. It has been stated that only small fraction of Gata No. 934 was initially fixed by the Consolidation Officer while deciding the objection of one of the lessee as 5 Annas or a Annas value which was subsequently reduced to one Anna. The Counsel for all the petitioners raise various submissions in support of their writ petitions.
(3.) IN other writ petitions apart from raising other submissions various Counsel raised submissions basing their right of finality of allotment by some order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation or by lower Consolidation authorities. The learned Chief Standing Counsel has given detailed chart showing details in various writ petitions pertaining to finality of Consolidation proceedings. It has been stated therein: "in the following writ petitions the petitioners are claiming that the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation have become final: " (1) Deputy Director of Consolidation order dated 30- 5-1995: 1. Writ Petition No. 39460 of 1998 2. Writ Petition No. 83 of 1999 3. Writ Petition No. 85 of 1999 4. Writ Petition No. 45401 of 1999 5. Writ Petition No. 5144 of 1996 (2) Deputy Director of Consolidation order dated 22-5- 1994: 1. Writ Petition No. 43285 of 1998 2. Writ Petition No. 43293 of 1998 3. Writ Petition No. 43296 of 1998 (3) Deputy Director of Consolidation order dated 28-3- 1993: 1. Writ Petition No. 39642 of 1998 (4) Deputy Director of Consolidation order dated 24-1- 1996: 1. Writ Petition No. 4934 of 1999 (5) Deputy Director of Consolidation order dated 24-8- 1992: 1. Writ Petition No. 40141 of 1998". In other writ petitions also the submissions raised are that the impugned order dated 22-9-1998 has been passed without notice and opportunity to the petitioners. It has also been contended that the case of different petitioners have neither been considered nor any reason has been given for altering of Chaks of the petitioners.;