The Allahabad High Court while rejecting the petition held that according to Section 132 of U.P.Z.A and L.R Act, no bhumidhari right shall accrue on ‘pasture land’, a land for public utility and purpose and during consolidation proceedings, such lands shall not be included in scheme of consolidation.
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Basdev and others.
The fact which is not in dispute is that the nature of land in dispute, in this case, was not on record during first consolidation proceedings.
However, during second consolidation proceedings, the land in dispute was earmarked for charagah/pasture land. The second consolidation proceedings got over and a notification under Section 52(1) of U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was issued on 04.12.1993. Later on, land in dispute was valued and allotted to petitioners on valuation and present status of land allotted to petitioners are on record i.e some parts of land are still vacant and on some parts of land constructions of different nature are raised. Details of allotment of land in dispute to petitioners such as respective allotment orders specifying respective allotted areas, dates of such allotments are not on record.
Further, it is also not disputed that after 24 years of a notification being issued under Section 52 of the Act, 1953, the private contesting respondent (Raj Narayan) has submitted an application dated 17.07.2017, before the District Magistrate, Azamgarh, making a specific allegation that about 4.42 aire of land i.e land in dispute was recorded under the category of ‘pasture land’ in revenue records, however, it was allotted illegally to the petitioners and at present only 3.48 aire land is available being ‘pasture land’ and it was also alleged that petitioners are powerful persons and officials are in hand in glove with them. The allotment was devoid of any due process and thus being illegal are obtained by fraud and, therefore, order be set aside and appropriate action be taken.
The Court noted that the said complaint was referred to Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, who sought a report from the Consolidation Officer by order dated 05.09.2017 and it was further directed that all concerned parties shall be put on notice. Later on, on basis of a report received, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh, by a communication dated 07.01.2023, addressed to District Magistrate, has prepared a hart mentioning all details such as, new Gata numbers and old Gata Numbers and respective area thereof as well as names of tenure holders mentioned in Form 45 and present status of land in dispute with relevant naksha-nazri (spot map). The details thereof have not been seriously disputed by any petitioner. A spot map was also prepared which apparently indicates that all petitioners were allotted abutting land i.e. adjacent to the main road, which also indicates that land has potential value.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation heard the parties and passed the order dated 28.02.2023. Issue of compliance with principles of natural justice has not been seriously argued.
The District Magistrate/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, has placed reliance on report, revenue records as well as considered arguments of rival parties and held that since the land in dispute was earmarked for ‘pasture land’ which could not be allotted to petitioners being contrary to provisions of Section 132 of U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and, therefore, allotments so made were cancelled and it was directed that land in dispute be restored/recorded back as ‘pasture land’ in revenue record. In the impugned order, Revisional Authority has taken note of procedure, nature of land which could be valued and allotted and that if the allotment was beyond jurisdiction, it would be void and in such case, limitation would be of no consideration.
It is a case of petitioners that nature of land was not specified during first consolidation proceedings, however, admittedly during second consolidation proceedings, entire land in dispute was earmarked as ‘’pasture land’’ and it is also not in dispute that it was allotted in parts to the petitioners on valuation and on some part of land certain constructions have been erected, whereas, some parts of land are still vacant and there is no dispute in regard to present status of land as provided in the Inspection Report dated 07.01.2023.
The Court held that,
It could conclusively be held that according to Section 132 of U.P.Z.A and L.R Act, no bhumidhari right shall accrue on ‘pasture land’, a land for public utility and purpose and during consolidation proceedings, such lands shall not be included in scheme of consolidation. Section 29-C of Act of 1953 provides land contributed for public purposes shall be utilized for the said purpose as earmarked in the fixed consolidation scheme and further that Section 19-A of Act of 1953 which is an enabling Section, enables the Assistant Consolidation Officer while preparing the provisional consolidation scheme to make allotment of Gaon Sabha land after determination of its valuation but only in compliance of due process and after due consideration of factors enumerated therein, in exceptional circumstances and not in a routine manner.
In a case where a land, if recorded in revenue records as a ‘pasture land’ i.e a land defined in Section 132 of U.P.Z.A and L.R Act, that land shall not be included under the consolidation proceedings as specifically excluded by the provisions of Section 3(2) of Act of 1953, however, since in the case, either of rival parties have not placed any document on record that land in dispute was initially recorded as ‘pasture land’, therefore, there was no illegality or irregularity when land in dispute was included in consolidation proceedings.
“In the case, petitioners have not brought on record copy of orders, whereby land earmarked for public purpose (‘pasture land’) was allotted to them, in order to scrutinize whether the Assistant Consolidation Officer was satisfied that the allotment of such land was ‘necessary’ or ‘expedient’ as well as it would not be against the public purpose and after allotment, how much area of land was likely to be left with Gaon Sabha for the purpose of ‘pasture land’. There is nothing on record that in lieu of the land in dispute, some other equal area (in terms of valuation or otherwise) was earmarked as ‘pasture land’ and it becomes more relevant since it has been pointed out by the counsel for respondent/complainant that the land in dispute is abutting to main road, thereby is having a potential value.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in arguments of the counsel for petitioners and there is no illegality in the impugned order”, the Court observed while rejecting the petitions.
The Court opined that even in case a land earmarked for public purpose it could be allotted, however, such allotment has to be carried out in accordance with due process prescribed under Section 19-A of the Act, 1953 with specific reasoning, i.e necessity and expediency for allotment, and it is up to the appropriate Authority to exercise such procedure afresh, if situation so warrants and for that a status-quo is directed to be maintained on the land in dispute only for a period of three months. Meanwhile, State of Uttar Pradesh or the concerned appropriate Authority, may take an appropriate decision in terms of Section 19-A of the Act, 1953, if so warranted.