Salil Kumar Rai, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Aditya Narain, counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 6.
(2.) It appears that in the basic year khatauni, Plot No. 143/2 (area 0.36) was recorded as Banjar and therefore vested in the Gaon Sabha i.e. respondent no. 3. The petitioner filed objections under Section 9A-(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') before the concerned Consolidation Officer regarding the entries in the basic year khatauni relating to the disputed plot along with an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1963') praying to condone the delay in filing the said objections. Initially, the said application filed under Section 5 of the Act, 1963 was dismissed by the concerned Consolidation Officer but the appeal filed against the said order of the Consolidation Officer was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the same on merits. Subsequently, the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 28.9.1981 decided the objections of the petitioner holding that the petitioner was co-tenure holder of the disputed plot along with certain other persons and therefore directed that the revenue records may be appropriately corrected. Against the order dated 28.9.1981 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 numbered as Appeal No. 291/339 alleging that he was the sole tenure holder of the disputed plot. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 6.4.1998 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District Jaunpur on the basis of some compromise dated 24.2.1998 signed by all the co-tenure holders. Consequently, reference proceedings under Section 109 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 were instituted. The Consolidation Officer also passed an order dated 15.9.2000 issuing process for mutation in the revenue records incorporating the abovementioned orders passed by consolidation authorities. During the aforesaid proceedings, the concerned Tehsildar submitted a report dated 22.12.2000 to the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District Jaunpur bringing to his notice that the disputed plot was recorded as Banjar in the revenue records relating to the basic year and sought guidance from the concerned officer for appropriate mutation in the revenue records in light of the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District Jaunpur after considering the records of the case, vide his order dated 26.12.2000 directed the District Government Counsel to file appropriate appeals/revisions against the orders dated 28.9.1981 passed by the Consolidation officer and 6.4.1998 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation or to take other appropriate steps to get the said order cancelled or recalled. Consequently, the State Government and Gaon Sabha i.e. respondent no. 3 filed joint appeals before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation against the order dated 28.9.1981 passed by the Consolidation Officer and joint revisions under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 against the order dated 15.9.2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer directing the implementation of the order dated 6.4.1998 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and also a recall application before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation praying for recalling the order dated 6.4.1998. A perusal of the memorandum of recall application as well as memorandum of appeals show that the said cases have been filed by the State Government and the Gaon Sabha jointly inter alia alleging that the order dated 28.9.1981 had been passed without setting-aside the order dated 4.6.1968 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case Nos. 6461 and 6462 directing that the disputed plots be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid appeals and recall applications as well as the order dated 26.12.2000 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District Jaunpur directing the District Government Counsel to take steps against the orders dated 28.9.1981 and 6.4.1998 as well as 15.9.2000 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer.
(3.) It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings instituted by the State Government along with the Gaon Sabha and challenged in the present writ petition are malicious and frivolous in nature and have been instituted only to harass the petitioner and are, therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his argument, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court reported in Mohd. Shahid & Anr. vs State of U.P. & Others, 2003 2 ARC 321 as well as Gulab Chand vs Munsif West, Allahabad & Others, 1988 1 ARC 335.;