Sukhendra Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Ors

Sukhendra Singh and Ors. ... Appellants

Vs.

State of U.P. and Ors. ... Respondents

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

Leave granted.

2. At the conclusion of the arguments we indicated that,

in our opinion, the matter has to go back to the High Court. Now

we give the reasons therefor. In order to understand the

controversy, it is necessary to state briefly the facts leading up to

the filing of these two appeals, by special leave.

1

3. Ravi Dutta Singh (2nd appellant) is father of

Sukhendra Singh ( 1st appellant). They initiated two separate

proceedings under Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of

Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, `1953 Act') against Gaon Sabha,

Lakanpur (now Gram Panchayat, Lakhanpur - 4th respondent) for

declaring them as Bhumidhar and removing the name of Gaon

Sabha in respect of diverse plots details of which have been set

out in synopsis at pages B and C. For brevity, we shall refer to

these plots as `the disputed land'. On January 3, 1978, by two

separate orders, the Consolidation Officer, Allahabad declared

Ravi Dutta Singh and Sukhendra Singh (Surendra Bahadur Singh)

Bhumidhar in respect of the disputed land and ordered removal of

name of Gaon Sabha from the revenue record. It appears that no

follow up action was taken pursuant to the orders dated January 3,

1978 by the concerned authorities, and accordingly, the 1st

appellant made an application under Section 52 (2) of the 1953

Act before the Consolidation Officer, Allahabad for implementation

of the aforesaid orders. On December 18, 1995 after seeking the

report from the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the Consolidation

Officer, Allahabad ordered that the revenue record be corrected by

2 entering the applicant's name as Bhumidhar. Yet again, nothing

seems to have been done pursuant to the order dated December

18, 1995. The 1st appellant, 2nd appellant and Smt. Etrawass

Kunwari (3rd appellant), who is wife of 2nd appellant, approached

the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing few separate

petitions. Strangely one writ petition in the name of Gram

Panchayat, Lakhanpur also seems to have been filed which was

heard along with writ petition filed by the 1st appellant. By

separate orders passed on March 24, 1998 in each of these

petitions, the concerned authorities were directed to make

necessary corrections in the revenue record pursuant to the orders

dated January 3, 1978

4. Sometime later, Gram Panchayat, Lakhanpur moved

an application before the Consolidation Officer, Allahabad for

recalling the orders dated January 3, 1978. The Consolidation

Officer took cognizance of that application and issued notices to

1st and 2nd appellant for their appearance before him on June 25,

2001. The said notices were challenged by the 1st and 2nd

appellant before the Allahabad High Court and the said writ

petition is said to be pending.

3

5. Pertinently, Gram Panchayat, Lakhanpur filed a writ

petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54673 of 2002) before the

Allahabad High Court for setting aside the orders earlier passed

by the High Court on March 24, 1998 and the orders dated

January 3, 1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer. In this writ

petition, the present appellants were impleaded as respondent

Nos. 4, 5 and 6. It was averred in the writ petition that the orders

dated March 24, 1998 were obtained by present appellants

fraudulently and by misrepresentation and concealment of facts.

6. The Consolidation Officer again issued notices to the

1st and 2nd appellant asking them to appear before him on July 18,

2007. They challenged these notices by filing writ petition (Civil

Misc. Writ Petition No. 45091 of 2007). These two writ petitions

were heard together by the Division Bench. By the first order

passed on February 5, 2009, the writ petition filed by the Gram

Panchayat, Lakhanpur was disposed of. By that order, the

Division Bench directed the Consolidation Officer, Allahabad to

decide the dispute afresh in the light of the orders of that Court

passed on March 24, 1998. By a separate two-line order of even

date, the other writ petition filed by the 1st and 2nd appellant was

4 disposed of in terms of the order passed in the writ petition filed by

the Gram Panchayat, Lakhanpur.

7. With respect to the Judges presiding the Bench, we

find it difficult to appreciate their approach in remanding the matter

without indicating the reasons in support thereof. We are quite

unable to discover any reason as to why the matter has been sent

back to the Consolidation Officer. The first order dated February

5, 2009 reads as follows:

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Consolidation Officer is directed to decide this question afresh in the light of the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition Nos. 10282 of 1998, 10284 of 1998 and also the judgment of the division bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 15771 of 1996, if relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case."

The second order of the even date reads:

"The writ petition is disposed of for order (sic) see order of the passed on Writ petition No. 54673 of 2002."

In the writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat, the plea of fraud,

misrepresentation and concealment of facts has been raised

against the present appellants in obtaining the orders dated March

24, 1998 from the High Court in various writ petitions as well as the

orders dated January 3, 1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer.

5 As a matter of fact, the grievance has been raised that no writ

petition was filed by the Gram Panchayat earlier and one writ

petition in the name of Gram Panchayat has been fraudulently

filed. Obviously, the grievances raised by the Gram Panchayat,

Lakhanpur in their writ petition cannot be gone into by the

Consolidation Officer. On the other hand, the 1st and 2nd

appellant in their writ petition before Allahabad High Court have

raised the grievance with regard to continuous disregard of the

orders of the High Court passed on March 24, 1998 as well as

the legality and justification of the notices issued to them for their

appearance before Consolidation Officer on July 18, 2007 and in

reopening the consolidation proceedings. In our view, the

controversy raised by the 1st and 2nd appellant on the one hand

and the Gram Panchayat on the other was required to be

considered judiciously by the High Court and not in the slipshod

manner in which it has been done. We are constrained to

observe that there is no application of mind at all to the issues

raised by the parties in the two writ petitions.

8. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated

February 5, 2009 are set aside; Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.

54673 of 2002 (Gram Panchayat Lakhanpur Vs. State of U.P.

6 and Ors.) and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45091 of 2007

(Sukhendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) are restored

to the file of the High Court for fresh consideration on merits in

accordance with law. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly

with no order as to costs.

.........................J. (Aftab Alam)

New Delhi, ........................J. August 26, 2010 (R.M. Lodha)

7