R.R.K.Trivedi - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner. On the basis of a resolution of the Gaon Sabha, dated 15-8-1973, petitioner is claiming land in dispute. On the basis of this resolution name of petitioner was recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 4 2-1975 The order of the S.D.O. was challenged in revision Board of Revenue vide order dated 15-2-1977 quashed the order of the S. D. O. dated 4-2-1975 on which basis name of the petitioner was recorded in revenue papers and the petitioner Vikram Singh Junior High School Prithvipur was directed to first obtain approval of the Sub Divisional Officer regarding the resolution of the Land Management Committee dated 15-8-1973. This order of the Board of Revenue was challenged in this Court. This Court vide order dated 18-1-1992 dismissed the writ petition. However, it was left open to the petitioner to approach the consolidation authorities as the village has been brought under consolidation. The order passed by this Court dated 8-1- 1992 has been filed as Annexure VI to this writ petition. It appears that in the mean time the land in dispute was allotted in favour of respondents nos. 6 to 18 and the revenue authorities have directed that their names may be mutated in the revenue papers. The orders of the authorities granting mutation in favour of respondents nos. 15 to 18 dated 18-11-1991, 13-11-1991 and 26-12-1991 have been challenged by means of this writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner has submitted that by the order dated 13-10-1987 objection of the pradhan was dismissed in default and name of petitioner continued on record, and the entry in favour of petitioner has become final. Chak carved out in; his favour has also become final. Claim of the state and Gaon Sabha is also barred under section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holding Act. It has been further submitted that the allotment proceedings in favour of respondents nos. 6 to 18 have been made behind the back of petitioner and they are void proceedings. My attention has also been invited to the fact that proceeding under section 198 for cancellation of allotment in favour of the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 13-7-1982 by the Collector. Learned Counsel for petitioner has also referred to various cases, viz. Badal v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1970 RD 240 (FB); Lalsa v. State of U. P., 1972 RD 367 (DB); Ashfaq Ahmad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Allahabad, 1978 AWC 470 and Gram Sabha Kodra v. Noor Mohammad Khan, 1974 ALJ 516 (DB). I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner and I have also perused the record and gone through the cases cited in support of the submissions. Consolidation of Holdings Act deals with the tenure holders. Section 7 (ii) defines it to mean Bhumidhar, sirdar and inter alia Asami. It provides for adjudication of their rights for allotment of chaks to them and for delivery of possession over such chaks to the concerned tenure holders. In the present petition now it has to be seen whether the petitioner could be a Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami in respect of the plots in dispute.
(3.) THE undisputed facts are that Gaon Sabha by a resolution dated 15-8-1973 proposed to let out the ptots in dispute in favour of petitioner. THE Sub Divisional Officer by his order dated 4-2-1975 directed to record the name of the petitioner in revenue papers. This order of the Sub Divisional Officer was challenged in revision under section 218 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act which was referred by the Additional Commissioner to the Board of Revenue where it was registered as Reference No; 303-304 (L.R.) of 1975 -76. THE Board of Revenue after hearing the parties found that the impugned order of the Sub Divisional Officer was passed on the application dated 9 1-1975 moved by Vikram Singh, manager of the petitioner school for grant of permission to the Land Management Committee for execution of the lease in favour of petitioner in respect of the land in dispute in pursuance of the aforesaid resolution of the Gaon Sabha. However, the Sub Divisional Officer illegally treated the application as an application for mutation and directed for recording of the name of petitioner in revenue papers. It was also noticed that two of the plots were already allotted in favour of hospital. However, no notice was issued to the hospital nor any proclamation was issued for mutating the name of petitioner. THE Board of Revenue took the view that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 4-2-1975 is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal in every respect and cannot be maintained. With these findings the revision was allowed and the order dated 4-2-1975 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was set aside and the petitioner was directed to obtain the approval of the Sub- Divisional Officer regarding the proposal of the Land Management Committee dated 15-8-1973. It will be relevant to quote the operative part of the order dated 15-2-1977 passed by the Board of Revenue : "Accordingly agreeing with the Additional Commissioner, I allow the present revision petitions filed separately by Bharat Singh and Nawab Singh and quash the S.D.O.'s impugned order dated 4-2-1975. THE Vikram Singh Vidyalaya shall first have to obtain the S.D.O.'s approval, as under the Law regarding the L.M.C.'s proposal dated 15-8-1973 to lease out the suit plots to the Vidyalaya without charging any rent, without such approval as under the Law and grant of a lease deed in pursuance of the same, no proceedings under section 34 U. P. Land Revenue Act can be undertaken." It cannot be disputed that without prior approval of the Assistant Collector First Class, Incharge of the Sub-Division a lease cannot be granted by Land Management Committee under the provision of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and the Rules framed thereunder. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed any material on record showing that after order of the Board of Revenue dated 15-2-1977 the petitioner ever obtained the required approval of the Sub Divisional Officer and in pursuance there of any lease was executed in its favour. The effect of the order dated 15-2-1977 passed by the Board of Revenue was that the entries made in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 4-2-1975 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Chhibra Mau became without any right, title or interest. Such entry even if continued on papers could not confer any right on petitioner. In facet, in pursuance of the order of the Board of Revenue under Rule 39 of the U. P. Revenue Court Manual, revenue records ought to have been corrected However, it appears that it was not done. The provisions of Rule 39 have been held to be mandatory by a Division Bench of this Court in case Nanhun v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1973 RD 146. The Division Bench observed as under : "In the instant case it has mot been stated in the writ petition that no order as required by Rule 39 aforesaid was issued. The provisions of the said rule are mandatory and in view of illustration (e) to section 114 of the Evidence Act it can safely be presumed that such an order was issued The decree and the order issuing parwana for delivery of possession read with the mandatory requirements of Rule 39 aforesaid had the effect of requiring necessary correction being made in the records as contemplated by Explanation III aforesaid. Consequently even if the correction may not hate been incorporated in the records it would be immaterial and the entry of 1356F would be deemed to have been corrected before the date of vesting Such an entry on the face of it could not confer any Adhivasi rights on the appellant." ;