BADRI PRASAD Vs. SMT. BARKO AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-1965-11-37
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 12,1965

BADRI PRASAD Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Barko And Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ROOP NARAIN V. STATE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PARMESHWAR DUTT SHUKLA VS. D.D.C. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-93] [REFERRED TO]
LALASA VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
PARMESHWAR DUTT SHUKLA VS. D D C [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-396] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA AND ANOTHER VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION MUZAFFAR NAGAR AND 4 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2015-10-219] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.C. Desai, C.J. - (1.)THIS is a petition for certiorari to quash an order passed by a Joint Director, Consolidation. It came up for hearing before our brother Beg who referred it to a larger bench because of the submission made to him by counsel that Roop Narain v. State, 1962 AWR 727 might require reconsideration or clarification. The impugned order of the Joint Director is one rejecting an objection of the Petitioner against valuation of some plots proposed to be given in his chaks.
(2.)A consolidation scheme under Section 13 consists of the statement of principles, the statement of proposals, the statement of valuation of plots referred to in Section 13 -C and such other statements as may be prescribed. Under Section 13 -Can Assistant Consolidation Officer is required to prepare in respect of each plot in the unit under consolidation a statement showing its valuation, valuation of the trees, wells and other improvements existing on it, the details of blocks etc. Under Sub -section (2) the statement is to be published in the unit and the relevant extract therefrom is to be "issued to each tenure holder along with notice inviting objections against the entries in the extract." Under Sub -section (3) "every tenure -holder to whom an extract has been sent under Sub -section (2), and any other person likely to be affected thereby, may, with' in 21 days of publication of the statement of valuation of plots, file objections thereon before the Assistant Consolidation Officer." If any objection is filed under these provisions it is to be disposed of by a Consolidation Officer and there is a right of appeal from his order. Whatever order is passed by the appellate authority is final vide Sub -section (5). The notice that is issued to a tenure -holder under Sub -section (2) requires "any person interested to the objection disputing the correctness of any entry with regard to valuation....shown in the statement attached". A statement of principles is prepared under Section 14 and there are provisions for objections and appeals. A statement of proposals is prepared under Section 19 and there are provisions for objections against it. Section 23 deals with confirmation of the statement of proposals and Section 18 with confirmation of the statement of principles; there is no provision for confirmation of the statement of valuation of plots. 3. The Petitioner filed an objection under Section 13 -C(3) only in respect of the valuation of plot No. 728 which adjoined his holding; he did not file any objection about the valuation of plots Nos. 724, 725 and 727 belonging to opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, tenure -holders. When in the statement of proposals plots Nos. 724, 725 and 727 were given in his chak he objected to their valuation on the ground that it was exaggerated. The objection was allowed by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director but has been rejected by the Joint Director on the ground that it was barred by Section 13 -C(3).
4. One reason given by the Joint Director is that the Petitioner also is the Chairman of the Consolidation Committee of the unit and that it was his duty to see that the valuation of every plot was correct and to get incorrect valuation corrected. There exists no statutory provision for this duty. Further the Petitioner filed the objection against the valuation of plots Nos. 724, 725 and 727 as a tenure -holder affected by their exaggerated valuation because they were proposed to be given in his chak and not as Chairman of the Consolidation Committee. The main question is whether the objection filed by him against the statement of proposals was barred by any provision. It is not stated in section 21 that no objection can be filed against the valuation of any plot proposed to be given in the chak of a tenure -holder. Section 13C(3) also does not bar this objection at the stage of Section 21. The period of limitation is for an objection by a tenure -holder in respect of the plots belonging to him and an extract of which is given to him. A tenure -holder receives an extract from the statement of valuation of plots pertaining to the plots included in his holding and he can be expected to file an objection against the valuation of any of those plots. Though the whole statement is published in the village, every tenure -holder cannot be expected to scrutinise the valuation of every plot or to file objections against the valuation of all the plots. There is a possibility of any plot being given in the chak of any tenure -holder but it does not mean that the legislature expects every tenure -holder to scrutinise the valuation of every plot in the unit and object to any valuation that he thinks to be wrong. It cannot be the duty of every tenure -holder to file an objection to the valuation of any plot which is wrong according to him; it is obvious that a tenure -holder is expected to file an objection against the valuation of only the plots of his holding and not of other holdings on the there possibility that he might be affected by their incorrect valuation (if they are allotted to his chak), If every tenure -holder were required to file objection against valuation of other plots the work of deciding them would be beyond the control of the consolidation authorities. Whatever might be the contents of the notice issued under Sub -section (2) Sub -section (2) itself requires tenure -holder to file an objection against the valuation of only those plots which are entered in the extract furnished to him. Therefore, no tenure -holder is bound to file an objection against the valuation of any plot not belonging to him. He may file an objection on the ground that he is interested, in the sense that he stands in the danger of being allotted that plot in his chak. The question is whether he is bound to do so, and the answer is in the negative.

5. We, therefore, hold that the Petitioner was not bound to file an objection against the valuation of plots Nos. 724, 725 and 727 under Section 13 -C(3) and that there is nothing to debar him from objecting to their valuation when according to the statement of proposals they were proposed to be given to him in his chak. That is the stage when he can file an objection and he can file it within the time prescribed for an objection against the statement of proposals.

6. We allow this petition, quash the order of the Joint Director and direct him to pass another order on the revision application of opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 in conformity with this judgment. The Petitioner will get his costs from opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.