GAON SAMAJ, DIDHAUNI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, UP LUCKNOW CAMP AT JAUNPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner wants that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed on 16 -11 -1956, be set aside. It appears that during the proceedings Under Section 9 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act the plots in dispute were held to be Gaon Sabha plots. I am informed by the Learned Counsel that the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed the ultimate order in this respect on 15 -10 -1965. The statement of principles Under Section 8 -A was published on 17 -8 -1964 and the same was confirmed on 31 -3 -1966. Thereafter on 26 -5 -1966, Respondent No. 4, Ganesh Rai Maha Vidyalaya filed an application before the Consolidation Officer praying that some land may be earmarked and reserved for the School. This application was referred to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who in his turn referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for orders. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in his report recommended that the plots in dispute be earmarked for the School. The Deputy Director of Consolidation remanded the matter on 17 -7 -1966, with a direction that the Consolidation Committee be consulted. The Consolidation Committee also approved the proposal that the plots in dispute be earmarked for the fourth Respondent. Near about that time a meeting of the Land Management Committee of the Gaon Sabha was also held and it was resolved that the plots be given to the school. Thereafter the matter came back before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order passed on 16 -11 -1966, accepted the recommendation made by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). He held that the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha who alone has made an objection could not show that his objection was supported by any resolution of the Land Management Committee or that it had the assent of the Sub Divisional Officer. He, therefore, held that the objection has no locus standi. The land was being given in the interest and benefit of the community as a whole of the locality and that it was in the best interest of all concerned. He, therefore, directed that the statement of principles be amended as recommended by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). This order has been challenged on the ground that Section 9 -B of the Act would bar such a proceeding.

(2.) SECTION 8 of the Act requires the District Deputy Director of Consolidation to determine the valuations and shares in joint holdings and to prepare a khasra chakbandi. Under Section 8 -A the statement of principles is prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The statement is to contain Under Clause (a) the details of areas, as far as they could be determined at that stage, to be earmarked for extension of abadi including areas for abadi site for Harijans and landless persons in the unit and for such other public purposes as may be prescribed. Under Clause (c) it is to contain the details of land which is to be earmarked for public purposes out of land vested in a Gaon Sabha or a Local Authority under the UP ZA and LR Act. The statement has to be in the prescribed form which gives the rights of the tenure -holders in respect of the various plots included in it. Then Under Section 9 the statement is to be published and objections invited. Any person to whom a notice Under Sub -section (1) of Section 9 has been sent can Under Sub -section (2) thereof file an objection within 21 days of the receipt of the notice, or the publication. The objection could be in respect of the correctness or nature of the entries in the records or in the extracts or in the statement of principles. Then Under Section 9 -A the Assistant Consolidation Officer is to effect reconciliation if possible, otherwise refer the disputed cases to the Consolidation Officer for disposal. Section 9 -B requires the Consolidation Officer to consider and decide the objections. His decision is subject to an appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Under Sub -section (3) of Section 9 -B the decision of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is final except as otherwise provided by or under the Act. The exception obviously is inter alia referable to Section 48 whereunder the Director of Consolidation has been given the power to look into any proceeding and pass appropriate orders. It was urged that it was open to the Respondent School to have filed an objection Under Section 9 -A within the prescribed period of time. No such objection having been filed it was not open to it to agitate the matter subsequently. The present application was barred by Sub -section (3) of Section 9B. That provision bars a person fro in agitating any dispute which has been decided by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) because the decision of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has been made final. In the present case the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had not decided anything in respect of the matter now sought to be raised. The fourth Respondent was not claiming any title to the plots in dispute. It had by the present application requested the authorities to earmark these plots for public purposes of the School. That was not a matter which had been decided by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by any order given in a disputed case. Sub -section (3) of Section 9 -B, therefore, was no bar to the maintainability of the present proceedings. Further Under Section 48 of the Act the Director of Consolidation has powers to look into any proceeding or order passed by the authorities below on his own initiative or on an application made by any party and make such order as he thinks fit. Section 9 -B(3) does not bar or restrict the jurisdiction of the Director of Consolidation Under Section 48. The impugned order has been passed by the Director of Consolidation presumably Under Section 48. The proceedings before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and his order, therefore, could not be barred by Section 9 -B(3) of the Act.

(3.) IT was then urged that the consolidation authorities had no power to transfer Gaon Sabha land to some one else. Section 8 A authorises the consolidation authorities to earmark Gaon Sabha land for public purposes. The details of areas to be earmarked for public purposes as may be prescribed are also to be mentioned in the statement of principles. Sub -rule (2) of Rule 24 -A mentions the public purposes for which land could be reserved. One such purpose is "primary and other schools". The last purpose is "any other objects of similar nature for which reservation of land may be considered necessary in the interest of the tenure -holders of the unit". In my opinion the order of reservation would fall under both of these clauses, It was urged that Clause (vi) refers to primary and other schools. The "other schools" would be of the same nature as primary schools. It would not include a degree college which was the status of the fourth Respondent. The submission was sought to be corroborated by the provisions of the UP Panchayat Raj Act whereunder the duty of the Gaon Sabha was to establish and maintain primary schools. Rule 164 A of the rules framed under the UP Panchayat Raj Act says that "for the purposes of Section 19 -A of the Act, the following works shall be treated as works of general public utility". Under Clause (ii) one such work is "construction, repair and maintenance of buildings for primary schools for boys and girls." That is a special definition of the words "of general public utility" within meaning of Section 19 -A of the UP Panchayat Raj Act. That provision authorises the Gaon Panchayat to direct the taking of manual labour for executing works of general public utility which may be prescribed by rules. Even if a school other than a primary school does not come within the rule relating to general public utility it would not detract from the powers conferred on the consolidation authorities to make reservations. Section 19 -A has a limited application. It has no relevance when Section 8 -A of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act is to be interpreted. The phrase "other schools" in the clause "primary and other schools" in my opinion has been used in a descriptive sense and would include educational institutions in general. In any event Clause (xiii) which is the residuary clause and provides "for any other object of similar nature" would include the school of the kind of Respondent no.