- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Present petition has been preferred canvasing the validity of the order dated 16-10-2002 passed by respondent No. 1 Deputy Director, Consolidation. By means of the impugned order, the Deputy Director, Consolidation allowed the revision and set aside the orders as erroneous passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in Appeal.
(2.) THE controversy in the instant petition revolves round Plot No. 283/1 admeasuring 0. 090 acres. Concededly, the respondent No. 2 to 4 are the tenure holder of Plot No. 283 from which stemmed plots 283/1 admeasuring 0. 090 acres facing western side and 283/2 admeasuring 282 acres situated towards eastern side. Out of the aforesaid plots, Plot No. 283/1 was marked out of consolidation operation under Section 8 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. THE petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the Consolidation authorities, preferred objection under Section 9 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the main plant of which was that Plot No. 283/1 was, with a purpose to a design, kept off the consolidation scheme which otherwise could have been utilized for carving out road to the extent of 30 Kari from West to North to facilitate his access from and to his house and that the land in and around the area was cultivatory land which could have been assessed for its valuation but the consolidation authorities proceeded against the interest of the petitioner at the dictates of Gram Pradhan etc. THE objection culminated in being rejected as being devoid of force by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 10-2-1998. Aggrieved by the rejection of the objection, the matter was taken in challenge by the petitioner in appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. In the appeal, spot inspection was ordered and from a perusal of the report of spot inspection submitted by the Consolidation Officer, it is explicit that there exists Abadi towards west of the road and the land in question towards sought and east of the land. THE Settlement Officer Consolidation in Appeal, jettisoned the claim of the petitioner holding that the Plot No. 283 did not belong to the petitioners and he had no right to prefer any objection but at the same time acting upon the application preferred by Gram Pradhan, he entered a verdict for the appellant quipping therein that the appeal in so far as it relates to valuation and carving of raod was tenable and consequently fixed 26-4-2002 for hearing on merit. This order was taken in challenge in revision by the respondent No. 2 to 4 in which the respondent No. 1 allowed the revision and reversed the order passed in appeal by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. It is this order which has been made subject-matter of impugnment in the instant petition. I have heard Sri Ram Niwas Singh for the petitioners assisted by Sri Amrendra Singh and Sri Aditya Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 to 4/caveators. The quintessence of the submission advanced across the bar by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, record was published under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the legal position being that anyone having interest in the land could prefer objection, the petitioner preferred objection accordingly to include entire Plot No. 283 in the Consolidation Scheme. It was further submitted that the revisional Court erroneously passed the impugned order inasmuch as they may not be recorded tenure holders but they are one of the tenure holders recorded in the village concerned and the action of the Consolidation authorities impinged upon the interest of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the valuation of the land in question should have been assigned and the view of the authorities relating to valuation of land and inclusion and exclusion of the land in Consolidation Scheme cannot be countenanced. A. K. Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondent/caveators, contended that the land was rightly chucked up out of the Consolidation Scheme with due regard being had to the guidelines issued from time to time by the Director of Consolidation and further that is it is only the tenure holders who could press the point in question and the petitioners not being tenure holders and their status is no more than interloper and thus were not entitled to raise question in relation to valuation of land, inclusion or exclusion of land in consolidation.
(3.) IN the context of the above arguments, it would be apt and proper to reckon into consideration certain provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. To begin with Section 3 (2) may be referred to. It defines 'consolidation' to be re-arrangement of holdings in a unit amongst several tenure holders in such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact. Explanation (vii) to Section 3 (2) denotes that for the purpose of this clause, holding shall not include such other areas as the Director of Consolidation may declare to be unsuitable for the purpose of Consolidation. Section 3 (2) being germane to the controversy involved in this petition may be quoted below. "section 3 (2 ).- Consolidation means re-arrangement of holdings in a unit amongst several tenure- holders in such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact. Explantion.- For the purpose of this clause, holding, shall not include the following: (i) land which was grove in the agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which the notification under Section 4 was issued; (ii) land subject to fluvial action and intensive soil issued; (iii) land mentioned in Section 132 of the U. P. Zaminadari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; (iv) such compact areas as are normally subject to prolonged water logging; (v) usar, kallar and rihala plots forming a compact area including cultivated land within such area; (iv) land in use for growing pan, rose, bela, jasmine and kewra; and (vii) such other areas as the Director of Consolidation may declare to be unsuitable for the purpose of Consolidation. " The Additional Director also circulated the basic principles to be kept in mind during consolidation operation vide letter dated 26th May, 1998. The relevant portion thereof is excerpted below for ready reference.;