In The Court of Addl. Dist. Magistrate (V.

Ra)/Deputy

Director of Consolidation, Balrampur

Surveillance No. 764/Baj/17-18, U/s 48(1) of U.P Consolidation

of Holdings Act

Jankiraman Vs. Nanku & Ors.

Vill-Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula,

District Balrampur

JUDGMENT

Time barred Suit application was presented on 20.12.2017 by

Smt. Mehrurnnisha, Village Pradhan- Gamafatmajot, Parganah-

Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula, District Balrampur against the

order dated 20.01.1986 passed in Surveillance No. 764, U/s

48(1) of U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act. Along with Time

barred Suit application, an affidavit and an application U/s 5 of

Indian Limitation Act was also presented. During the hearing,

Bhanupratap Verma, S/o Radhikaprasad R/o Gumafatmajot,

Parganah – Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula, District-Balrampur

have also presented Time barred application, affidavit and an

application U/s 5 of Indian Limitation Act on 9-03-2018. That

an objection has been presented by the Parvez Ahmed, S/o

Mohammed Omar and Kamarunnisha wife Mohammed Omar and

Md. Shafi S/o Haji Bhullur, against the said application.

An adjournment order was passed on 20.11.17 by my

predecessor on the adjournment application of Smt.

Mehrunnisha, against which Md. Shafi filed a Writ Petition No.

458/2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow

Bench against which the Hon'ble High Court passed an order on

10-01-2018. Following are the highlights of the Hon'ble Court

Order dated 10-01-2018:

Insofar as the re - opening of the proceedings under section 48 of

the Act is concerned, it is to be kept in mind that the

maintainability of such an application would lie provided a party

coming forward has specifically asserted lack of opportunity at

the time of conclusion of proceedings. This averment has

specifically been made in the application for recall of order dated

20.06.1986, as such, this court may not enter into such an issue

unless objections are filed by the petitioner before the court

concerned and the same are decided finally.

 " Thus, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of

Consolidation on 20.12.2017 is hereby stayed subject to the

filling of objections by the petitioner within a period of 15 days

from today and case objections are filed by the petitioner against

the application for recall of order dated of a certified copy of this

order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

I heard and perused the arguments of the Ld. Counsel and

observed all the records available and written arguments given by

the opposite parties.

Applicant Smt. Mehrunnisha says that the Gata No. 875, 881,

882, 883, 890 which is a valuable land found by road, has been

rejected from the playground by the impugned order and has

been merged in Chakdar No. 23, 90, 278, 288 and Gata No. 856,

857, 873, 874, 888, 889 which is a land off road is given in the

playground but before passing this order no notice was given to

Gram Sabha neither the side of the Gram Sabha was heard.

Applicant also states that she was yet not aware of the said

order. When the counterpart Parvej Ahmad gave the rent of the

New Gata No.-740M, area 0-045 of the land in question in favour

of Mr. Abdul Mannan and a no objection certificate was asked by

the oil company in respect of the said land on 18.12.2017 the she

came to know about the said order.

The applicant Bhanupratapa Verma states that the counterpart,

Parvez Ahmed etc. had secretly stolen his ancestral property Gata

No. 11 / 0-45 D and with the help of Assistant Consolidation

Officer allotted the said land in their name by fake compromise

and then the land of the said land on the roadside playground

was secured for Gata no. 875, 881, 882, 883, 890. When Parvez

Ahmed etc. rented the above land to Indian Oil Petrol Pump, no

objection was asked on the said land by petrol pump, then the

applicant came to know about the said order.

Md. Shafi S/o Haji Bhullur has stated in his objection dated

24.02.2018 that the order dated 20.01.1986. has been passed on

merits after hearing the parties. Smt. Mehrunnisha has

personally given a time barred application without passing a

resolution from the Village Assembly. That information of

20.01.1986 order is known to Smt. Mehrunnisha long back but

31 Years later, the market is presented for political reasons and

has not shown any satisfactory reason for delay. Md. Shafi also

says that Parvez Ahmad has given the deed of his land in his

favour. Land in question is the land of tenants is wrongly

reserved for the playground. Section 52 has been published in

village Gumafatmajot on 01.12.1984. After the publication of

Section 52, no case can be tried in the Consolidation Court,

mentioning these facts Md. Shafi has requested for quashing of

the Present application.

Parvez Ahmed in his objection dated 24.02.2018 has stated

almost the same things that Md. Shafi has stated in his above

objection.

The Ld. Counsel for Smt. Mehrunnisha has predominantly said

the same things that have been mentioned in the Time barred

application. Apart from this, it is also stated that according to the

Rule 101 of Panchayat Raj Act, in urgent cases, the village head

can give the application without the resolution of the Gram

Sabha. He has also called the impugned order as vague in his

arguments. While argument the Government Counsel mainly

stated that the Gram Sabha has not been made a party under

surveillance nor has been any notice been sent. The same things

have been stated on behalf on Applicant Bhanupratap Verma,

which is mentioned in the application. In addition to the facts

mentioned in his objection and arguments made by the objectors

Md. Shafi and Parvez Ahmed, it was also stated that the village
head cannot personally submit the application on behalf of the

Gram Sabha. In urgent cases it can be done personally but after

that there should be a proposal from Gram Sabha. But in this

case, there has been no proposal of the Gram Sabha. It was also

stated that under surveillance, the Government has been made a

party, which includes the Gram Sabha. Therefore, the order in

question is not one sided.

It is evident from the observation of the Surveillance application

that Jankiraman had filed case against Nanku, Abuvakar, Mata

Prasad, Fahian and the Govt. of U.P as opposite parties, on

05.03.1984 against the Order dated 15.06.1980passed by the

Surveillance Settlement Officer. During the hearing Fahian

Ahmed S/o Jamil Ahmed, Parvez Ahmed S/o Md. Omar and

Kamrunnisha W/o Md. Omar were also made parties. In the

Surveillance, the amended table was made as per order dated

20.01.1986. Subsequently, the above amendment was repealed

and revised again on 20.06.1986. as per Revision table

20.06.1986, Abuvakar’s Chak No. 23 to Land No. 888 M./0-01,

Land No.- 889 M./ 0-05 total two kita’s of area 0-06 D

Assessment Value-0-64 Paisa, and Smt. Kamrunnisha W/o Md.

Omar Chak No.- 90 to Land No.-856/1M./0-07 D and Land No.-

857/1 Sq. 0-03 D. total two kitas area 0-10 D. Assessment

Value-0-83 Paisa and Parvez Ahmed Chak No. 278 to Land No.-

856 M./0-08 and Land No.-857 M/0-03 total two kitas area 0-11

D Assessment Value-0-92 Paisa and Fahain S/o Hasan Ali

Chakdar No. 288 to Land No.-856/1 M/0-03 D, 857/M/0-04 D,

873/2M/0-01 D, 874 M/0-01 D total 4 kitas area 0-09 D

Assessment Value-0-71 Paisa were given to playground and apart

from the playground Gata No. - 883 M./0-03, 890 M./0-04 Total

Kitas Area 0-07 D Assessment Value-0-65 Paisa. Chakdar

Number-23 to Abubakar and Gata Number-875 M / 0-05 D

Assessment Value- 0-53 Paisa. Chakdar Number-90 to Smt.

Kamarunnisha and Gata Number-875 M / 0-06 D, 881 M / 0-

01, 882 M / 0-04 D Total of 3 Kitas Area 0-11 D Assessment

Value 1-10 Paisa. Chakdar Number - 278 to Parvez Ahmed and

Gata Number - 881 M / 0-02, 882 M / 0-01, 883 M / 0-04, 890

M / 0-04 Total four-kitas area 0-11D Assessment Value- 1-10

Paisa and Chakdar No. -288 Fahian, in addition to the above

order, the mutations of certain chakdar have also been changed.

The Gram Sabha has not been made party under the surveillance

but State of U.P has been made a party, but neither the notice

has been sent to Gram Sabha nor to the U.P Government, while
in the event of playground being affected, it was mandatory to

send notice to the Gram Sabha and the State Government. On

submission of the applicants Time Barred application, notices

were sent to the above mentioned Chakdars in which notices was

served to Smt. Kamarunnisha, Parvez Ahmed, Fahian Ahmed. As

a result of the death of the Abuvakar, a notice was sent to his

legal heirs which is attached as annexure. Apart from Parvez

Ahmed no other Chakidars have objected against the said

application.

Since the notice was not sent to Gram Sabha and the State

Government under Surveillance, the order in question would be

considered one sided against the Gram Sabha and the State

Government and the point of time would not affect the order at

all.

Site inspection was done on 14.04.2018 by the consolidation

officer in the case. The Nazri map dated 14.04.2018 was

presented by the consolidation officer and the observation of the

Nazri map and other records given by the parties, shows that the

Settlement officer set the playground on the roadside from the

level of the consolidation, but the order passed in the

Surveillance Case the above chakdars have been shown chuck on

the side of the road in the playground and instead the

playground has been extended backwards. No way has been

shown to come to the playground after the chakdars have been

shown on the roadside under surveillance, nor is there any way

other than the said road. Few shops have been constructed on

the road side of the playground but not built on the most of the

parts. If in future, if any construction is done by roadside, then

there will be no way to come to the playground and thus the use

of playground will be hindered. In this way the interest of the

Gram Sabha/State Government is being affected by the

impugned order.

As per the above deliberations, the order is restored by cancelling

the portion of the dated 20.01.1986 as much as it relates to the

change in the playground land from the land of the above

mentioned squads. As far as the application of Bhanupratap

Verma is concerned, since Bhanupratap Verma or his ancestor’s

chakdars is not affected by the impugned order the time barred

application of Bhanupratap Verma dated 09.03.2018 is being

dismissed.

For objection Gram Sabha to be present on 23.04.2018.

Dated: 16.04.2018

Sd/-

Arun Kumar Shukla

Addl. Disst. Magistrate/ Deputy Director of Consolidation,

Balrampur

In The Court of Addl. Dist. Magistrate (V. Ra)/Deputy

Director of Consolidation, Balrampur

Surveillance No. 764/187/17-18, U/s 48(1) of U.P Consolidation

of Holdings Act

Jankiraman Vs. Nanku & Ors.

Vill-Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula,

District Balrampur

JUDGMENT

This application was presented for disposal as directed by the

Hon’ble High of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in the Writ Petition

No. 1770/2018 on 24.04.2018. The extracts of the order passed

by the Hon’ble High Court are as follows:-

It is evident from the record that the officer namely Sri Arun

Kumar Shukla was divested of his jurisdiction at Deputy Director

of Consolidation by an order dated 13.04.2018 as contained in

annexure no. 2 to this writ petition.

The impugned order from its plain reading indicates that some

survey was conducted through settlement officer Consolidation

on 14.04.2018 whereafter the impugned judgment was rendered

on 16.04.2018 based on the said report.

Once Sri Arun Kumar Shukla was divested of his powers as

Deputy Director of Consolidation by an order dated 13.04.2018

there was no reason for him to have undertaken the proceedings

of any survey or otherwise on 14.04.2018 even if hearing was

concluded on 12.04.2018. The very exercise of powers by the

Deputy Director of Consolidation appears to be excessive and the

impugned order calls for interference under article 226 of the

constitution of India.

The impugned order is accordingly set aside on this sole ground

and the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Director of

Consolidation for the same being decided not later then a period

of on month from today.

The dispute is summarized as a time barred Suit application was

presented on 20.12.2017 by Smt. Mehrurnnisha, Village

Pradhan- Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula,

District Balrampur against the order dated 20.01.1986 passed in

Surveillance No. 764, U/s 48(1) of U.P Consolidation of Holdings

Act, it was stated that in the above suit Gram Sabha was not

made a party and neither they were served a notice in the matter

where the land of the village with Gata No. 875, 881, 882, 883,

890 which is a precious land and was kept as playground of the

village was severed from the said Gata Number by the impugned

order and was merged in Chakdar No. 23, 90, 278, 288 which is

at distance from the road. It was prayed that the present

application be allowed and the order dated 20.01.1986 be set

aside. In support of her application a time barred application

along with affidavit was also presented.

On the said application my predecessor postponed the effect of

order dated 20.01.1986 on the adjournment application of Smt.

Mehrurnnisha and instructed to make it in a compliance records.

Against which Md. Shafi filed a Writ Petition No. 458/2018 before
the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench which was

decided on 10.01.2018, and in which the Hon’ble High Court was

pleased to adjourn the matter and directed to dispose the matter

within 3 months. The extracts of the order passed by the Hon’ble

High Court are as follows:- “ Insofar as the re - opening of the

proceedings under section 48 of the Act is concerned, it is to be

kept in mind that the maintainability of such an application

would lie provided a party coming forward has specifically

asserted lack of opportunity at the time of conclusion of

proceedings. This averment has specifically been made in the

application for recall of order dated 20.06.1986, as such, this

court may not enter into such an issue unless objections are filed

by the petitioner before the court concerned and the same are

decided finally.

" Thus, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of

Consolidation on 20.12.2017 is hereby stayed subject to the

filling of objections by the petitioner within a period of 15 days

from today and case objections are filed by the petitioner against

the application for recall of order dated of a certified copy of this

order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

During hearing the, the recall application was presented to the

District Magistrate/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Balrampur.

District Magistrate/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Balrampur,

directed to dispose of the order dated 10.01.2018 within the time

limit passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 458

(Cons), repealing the date 26.03.2018. In lieu of which my

predecessor accepted the applicant’s application dated

16.04.2018 and quashed the order dated 20.01.1986. Against the

above order Parvez Ahmed and others filed a writ petition no.

11770/2018, which was accepted on 24.04.2018 revoking the

order passed by the predecessor dated 16.04.2018 and directed

the disposal of the case again in one month. This suit is being

disposed of immediately.

Applicant village Pradhan, Gram Sabha- Gamafatmajot filed an

application dated 10.05.2018 to make some other account

holders of the land as contesting party. The above application

was accepted on 15.05.2018 and notice was issued against all

Mr. Muzzamilhussain S/o Wahidulhasan, Uvaidullah and

Uvaidurrahman S/o Md. Mohsin, Mrs. Rafikunisha W/o Abdul

Tayyab, Md. Issac, Md. Razzak, Md. Sehjad, Md. Hussain, Md.

Ayub, Riyajahmed @ Md. Riyaj all S/o Md. Indrish, Smt.

Kassurinnisha W/o Md. Indrish and Sharif Hasan S/o Tahir,

Kittabullah S/o Mujibullah, Istakbal S/o Hakim Mohammad.

Against the said application Md. Sharif Hasan and others all were

present and objected the said application of Village Pradhan Smt.

Mehrurnnisha and in response to the said application filed the

reply along with the affidavit and prayed that the said application

should not be allowed as they all are Benamedar and they are

just harassed by Smt. Mehrurnnisha due to political reasons.

Applicant’s application should be quashed. In response to which

Pradhan Gram Sabha protested while presenting an objection

letter.

Applicant Bhanupratap Verma S/o Radhika Prasad R/o

Gamafatmajot presented an application on 09.03.2018 and

submitted that the order dated 20.01.1986 is one-sided. The

original account holder of the disputed land was Dhukhi S/o

Dwarika whose legitimate heir to be the grandson of the said

latter is the interested party. Due to which it is necessary to be

heard in the said suit. He stated that the said land was received

by his grandfather in Bahami Bat.

I heard the counsel for the defendants and perused the records

carefully.
On behalf of Smt. Mehrurnnisha, her learned advocate argues

that the Gram Sabha has not been made a party in the

Surveillance Case. Without giving notice/summons to the Gram

Sabha in a Lawful manner the valuable land of the Gram Sabha

which is situated in Sadullanagar to Gorachakki PWD road which

was a part of land records no. 875, 881, 882,883, 890 and was

clearly reserved as a playground land, which cannot be merged in

any chakdar without the consent of the consolidation committee,

so the impugned order dated 20.01.1986 is not according to the

law and nor it is valid on any circumstances nor on the said

basis. He cited the historical judgment of Hinchalal V. Kamladevi.

He also argued that Gram Pradhan can take necessary action to

protect the interest of the Gram Sabha, as it is mentioned in Rule

101 of the Panchayati Raj Act Manual that in case of urgency the

Village Pradhan can take action on his own and he/she has the

right to appoint personal advocate. He/she vehemently prays that

her application to be admitted and order dated 20.01.1986 me

quashed. She also stated that a proposal of Gram Sabha is

received on which a letter of permission from the District

Magistrate has also been issued on 16.05.2018 which is there in

the application. The court was made to refer RLT 2013 Page No.
91 Ram Avtar Vs Harvilas and RLT 2003 Page No. 585 Rajaram

Vs Gram Sabha. At the point of limitation, he also drew the

attention of the court on section 229(B)/122(B) Uttar Pradesh

Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms 1950 and Section 5 of

limitation Act 1963.

The Ld. Counsel for applicant Bhanupratap Verma argues that

the order dated 20.01.1986 is one-sided. The original account

holder of the disputed land was Dhukhi S/o Dwarika whose

legitimate heir to be the grandson of the said latter is the

interested party. Due to which it is necessary to be heard in the

said suit. He stated that the said land was received by his

grandfather in Bahami Bat. It was humbly prayed that the order

dated 20.01.1986 to be set aside.

On behalf of Parvez Ahmed and others the Ld. Counsels submits

that the present application dated 20.12.2017 has been

personally given after 31 years against the order dated

20.01.1986. The reasons given in the time barred application is

fake, imaginary, fabricated and baseless. He also argues that the

order dated 20.01.1986 was passed after hearing the opposite

parties. For this reason the said order is not one sided or

unilateral. The said Gata No. 740/1-54is composed of the old

Gata No. 872, 873, 874, 875, 881,883, 884, 885, 886, 890 which

was registered on the name of tenants. The said Gata was not the

land of Gram Sabha. Separate land has been secured for the

playground which is still there as playground. He also argues

that because of the hostility due to political reasons by the

Village Pradhan this application has been submitted. His

statement is absolutely wrong that the said order came to light

when Abdul Mannan manager Kisan Sewa Kendra executed the

rent agreement of the Petrol Pump, Gurmafatjot and no objection

certificate was asked against the land by the oil company. It was

also stated that there is no justification for exempting the said

application on the point of limitation. So, the said application

needs to be dismissed. He also argues that the Pradhan of Gram

Sabha does not have the right to submit an application without

the permission of the District Magistrate nor the right to have a

private advocate. Without the consent of the Gram Sabha the

village Pradhan cannot file any suit.

On behalf of the opposition Parvez Ahmed it was also said that to

keep the case pending, the application has been filed by

Bhanupratap Verma, while he is not a party to the surveillance

neither the consolidation Officer nor the settlement officer was a

party in the court of consolidation. For this reason, they cannot

be made parties. No one sided order has been passed against

them. If any appeal has been submitted by them in the Court

then there appeal will be heard at that level. There is no

jurisdiction for being a party to surveillance in this court.

It was said on behalf of the opposition Md. shafi that the marking

of the said order has taken place in the records long back. All the

account holders occupied their lands the and the parties made

their land as per there free will and build the house etc, on the

said land, which consists of a branch of the Allahabad bank and

a school building in the name of Mrs. Kitabunisha educational

society. The original account holder has been allotted some

portion of the playing field on their demand by the said order

which was there original land. There is no damage to the

playground and it is still safe in its place. The application has

been filed after 31 years without showing any sufficient reason.

The reason for the day to day delay should be explained in

relation to the period of limitation. So, it is prayed that the said

application should be set aside.

It was argued on behalf of the opposition Md. Riyaz and others,

that the Gram Sabha does not have the right to present
individual application until a resolution is passed by the land

Management Committee according to Para 127-128 of the

manual of the Gram Sabha, and without passing of the

resolution of the land Management Committee, the head of the

village assembly has no right to submit any suit in private. The

application has been filed after 31 years. Based on the order

dated to 20.01.86, an amendment in the chaks was done and

change was made on the said land. The parties gave the deed of

some land to others as per their wish. Mrs. Mehrunisha has only

convicted the opposition to harass them. However, no application

was filed by her at that point of time. So, it is prayed that the

said application should be set aside.

It is evident from the observation of the Surveillance application

that Jankiraman had filed case against Nanku, Abuvakar, Mata

Prasad, Fahian and the Govt. of U.P as opposite parties, on

05.03.1984 against the Order dated 15.06.1980passed by the

Surveillance Settlement Officer. During the hearing Fahian

Ahmed S/o Jamil Ahmed, Parvez Ahmed S/o Md. Omar and

Kamrunnisha W/o Md. Omar were also made parties. In the

Surveillance, the amended table was made as per order dated

20.01.1986. Subsequently, the above amendment was repealed

and revised again on 20.06.1986. as per Revision table

20.06.1986, Abuvakar’s Chak No. 23 to Land No. 888 M./0-01,

Land No.- 889 M./ 0-05 total two kita’s of area 0-06 D

Assessment Value-0-64 Paisa, and Smt. Kamrunnisha W/o Md.

Omar Chak No.- 90 to Land No.-856/1M./0-07 D and Land No.-

857/1 Sq. 0-03 D. total two kitas area 0-10 D. Assessment

Value-0-83 Paisa and Parvez Ahmed Chak No. 278 to Land No.-

856 M./0-08 and Land No.-857 M/0-03 total two kitas area 0-11

D Assessment Value-0-92 Paisa and Fahain S/o Hasan Ali

Chakdar No. 288 to Land No.-856/1 M/0-03 D, 857/M/0-04 D,

873/2M/0-01 D, 874 M/0-01 D total 4 kitas area 0-09 D

Assessment Value-0-71 Paisa were given to playground and apart

from the playground Gata No. - 883 M./0-03, 890 M./0-04 Total

Kitas Area 0-07 D Assessment Value-0-65 Paisa. Chakdar

Number-23 to Abubakar and Gata Number-875 M / 0-05 D

Assessment Value- 0-53 Paisa. Chakdar Number-90 to Smt.

Kamarunnisha and Gata Number-875 M / 0-06 D, 881 M / 0-

01, 882 M / 0-04 D Total of 3 Kitas Area 0-11 D Assessment

Value 1-10 Paisa. Chakdar Number - 278 to Parvez Ahmed and

Gata Number - 881 M / 0-02, 882 M / 0-01, 883 M / 0-04, 890

M / 0-04 Total four-kitas area 0-11D Assessment Value- 1-10

Paisa and Chakdar No. -288 Fahian, in addition to the above

order, the mutations of certain chakdar have also been changed.

The Gram Sabha has not been made party under the surveillance

but State of U.P has been made a party, but neither the notice

has been sent to Gram Sabha nor to the U.P Government, while

in the event of playground being affected, it was mandatory to

send notice to the Gram Sabha and the State Government. On

submission of the applicants Time Barred application, notices

were sent to the above mentioned Chakdars. As a result of the

death of the Abuvakar, a notice was sent to his legal heirs which

is attached as annexure. No one was present from complainant

Jankiraman side and neither the application was opposed by

anyone, other persons like Parvez Ahmed, Md. Shafi, Riyaj

Ahmed and others have objected against the said application.

The land of the playground has been amended by the Impugned

order dated to 20.01.1986 and the Gram Sabha has not been

made a party to the Surveillance, due to which the Gram Sabha

did not get any hearing opportunity, and the precious land along

the roadside was merged in other chaks. Due to the which there

has been a irreparable loss has been caused to the Gram Sabha,

by the order dated 20.01.1986 which will be considered one sided

against the Gram Sabha. It is evident from the fact that the

Gram Sabha has not got the opportunity of hearing, due to which

the valuable field of the playground has been merged in the

chaks of the opposition Gata, thus the playing field has ceased to

exist. Thus the time limit in the present case is no bar to

entertain the present application. Therefore it is justified to give

the benefit of Section-5 of Limitation Act on the application

submitted by Mrs. Mehrunnisha, Pradhan, Gram Sabha.

It is question in application dated 03.03.2018 of applicant’s

Bhanupratap verma, the said order dated 20.01.86 has not

affected his chaks. Therefore, the application filed by him is not

maintainable.

ORDER

Therefore, Bajupratap Varma's application dated 09.03.2018 is

disposed of accordingly. The time barred application of Smt.

Mehrunisha is admitted on 20.12.2017, giving the benefit of the

Section-5 of Limitation Act. A pre-passed one-sided order dated

20.01.86 is revoked on the condition that the parties must give

their objection to the Surveillance by 31.05.2018.

Dated: 24.05.2018
 Sd/-

Ramanuj Singh

Addl. Disst. Magistrate/ Deputy Director of Consolidation,

Balrampur

ORDER

Smt. Mehrunnisha Gram Pradhan- Gamafatmajot, Parganah-

Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula, District Balrampur filed an

application dated 03.08.2019 through which she prayed before

the Hon’ble High Court that for compliance of order passed in

Writ Petition No. 22782/2018 dated 29.07.2019 seeks

permission to appoint Senior Advocate Mr. Mohammad Arif

Khan on behalf of Gram Sabha for lobbying the matter. A copy of

the order of the Hon'ble High Court along with application of

Village Pradhan and a copy of the resolution passed by the Land

management Committee dated: 19.08.2018 and other records

have been attached.

Extracts of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court dated

29.07.2019 are as follows:

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the District

Collector is required to take a fresh decision about various

resolutions of the Land Management Committee Gaon aabha in

accordance with law as to engagement of the Senior Advocate to

argue the Present writ petition on behalf of Gaon sabha or the

Land Management Committee. The salad decision shall be taken

within four weeks for the date of intimation of this order to the

Collector. He shall also consider giving permission for

continuance of the proceedings of this writ petition further taking

into account the best interest of the gaon sabha/ land

Management Committee.

The facts related to the case are summarized that against the

order dated 28.07.2018 passed by Deputy Director,

Consolidation Balrampur in Monitoring Number: 764/187/17.18

the Village Advocate Private Expenses for organizing the writ

petition in the High Court of Gram Pradhan Gomafat Majot.

Regarding being given permission to bind the application was

given on 30.07.2018. With the said application, the Pradhan

attached the proposal of land management committee on 09-05-

2018. The order was passed by the under signed on 14.11.2018

on the above mentioned application of the village head, due to

which the above proposal of Bhupraksh was not according to the

rules The above application was rejected. The fact was also

recorded that in future, if the land management committee

passes a resolution regarding appointment of a private advocate,

then it wil be considered on merit basis. Thereafter, the

application was submitted on dated 22-11-2018 by the village

head, though which it was requested that after holding the writ

petition no. 22782/2018 in the Hon'ble High Court, the three

meetings of the land cell dated: 05.08 2018, 12.08 2018 and

19.08.2018 Was done on 2018 With this application the village

head has attached his certified copy of the work of the three

dates mentioned above and has sought permission to advocate

for the land cell in the said writ petition.

To take decision on the above application letter of Gram

Panchayat, by additional Superindent, Additional District

Balram, Utrola Deputy District officer utrola, District

Government Advocate (Civil) Balrampur And committee of

District Government Advocate(Revenue) Balrampur. The said

committee gave its report on dated 05-09-2019. The committee

with its report Tehsildar utrola or Deputy District officer utrola,

conclusive report dated 31-08-2019, 03-09-2019 and 04-09-2019

also compiled.

additional Superindent, Additional District Balram, Deputy

District officer Utrola, District Government Advocate (Civil)

Balrampur And committee of District Government

Advocate(Revenue) Balrampur the committee concluded in its

report dated 05-09-2019 that the meeting of land management

committee was held on 05-08-2018, 12-08-2018 and 19-08-2018

it is not accordance by the law. Deputy District officer utrola and

tehsil utrola has not given any conclusion regarding the law of

the meeting of the land management committee in its joint report

on dated 31-08-2019.

Additional district magistrate letter was questioned on the said

report on dated 03-09-2019, on which the said officers submitted

their report dated 03-09-2019, where the meeting of the land cell

is stated to be legal only the basis that the meeting has been

held, on this report additional district magistrate again sought a

report on certain point by his letter dated 03-09-2019 on which

deputy district officer utrola and tehsildar utrola submitted their

report dated 04-09-2019. In which it has been concluded by

mentioning the rules that the meeting of the land cell are not

legally valid.

Record related to the case where persude. Only the chairman and

secretary are present in the meeting of the land department on

05-08-2018. In the proceeding of the said meeting, it is

mentioned that due to rain, the meeting could not be hela and

the next meeting was fixed on 12-08-2018. In addition to the

chairman, two member have been presented in the meeting of

land department on 12-08-2018. Due to non fulfillment of

quorum, the proceeding have been show to be postponed and

the next date meeting is dated 19-08-2018 and it is mention by

chairman to instruct the minister/accountant to issue notice to

the member by register post. The position of chairman and four

members is shown in the third meeting dated 19.08.2018. In the

proceedings of the meeting, it is mentioned to start the

proceedings of the meeting on the basis of manual 15-22 page

no. 18,19 of the provinces, in which the Senior Advocate Shri. Mo

Arif Khan has been requested for lobbying in the High court of

Justice on personal expenditure. Mentioned to go

As per the joint inquiry report dated 04.09.2019 of Deputy

District Magistrate, Utraula and Tehsil Utraula, there is total of

15 members in the landlord guma Fatmajot. According of Rule 78

of land Revenue Code Rule, the quorum of the meeting should be

50 percent of the committee, but quorum will not be required for

any adjourned meeting, but for this the members should be

informed.

Will be necessary. No such record / evidence was provided by the

village head which could clearly prove that the notice was served

to all the members of the land cell in connection with the meeting

date: 19.08.2018. Apart from this, it is also noteworthy that there

is no evidence that all the members of the committee were served

notice for any meeting in all the three meetings of the earth cell. -

It is clear from the above discussion that the proposal of the land

cell is not according to the rules and the prescribed procedure.

Therefore, the application given by the village head on the basis

of such proposal is not acceptable. Therefore, the above

application of the village head dated 22.11.2018 is canceled. In

honor of the above order of the Hon'ble High Court, it is also to

mention that the writ petition mentioned before the High Court.

No resolution has been passed by the land cell regarding the

placement nor any letter has been submitted regarding

permission to hold the writ petition. If in the future, the Earth

cell passes a resolution and presents a letter. If it is, it will be

considered.

(Krishna Karunesh) District Magistrate, Balrampur.

Office of the Collector, Balrampur. Number: (632 / D.L.R.C.

(Prof.-Permission) / 2019 -20 Date: September 06.2019 Copy:

Mr. Jai Kumar, Permanent Advocate, Village Council, High Court,

Lucknow Bench, Lucknow for information and necessary action

to the following

1- In the letter dated 05.09.2019 to him, for the information

and the intention that the mother should take the trouble of

bringing to the notice of the High Court

2- Deputy Collector, Utraula.

3- Village Head / President, Pr. Pr., Gumafatmajot Tehsil,

Uttaraula.

4- Tehsildar, utrola in two copies with the instruction that a

including village head After receiving the signatures on the

second copy with the date of receipt of their signature /

NDA, they should bother to send the report.

Collector Balrampur.

INDIAN NON-JUDICIAL

On Rs. 10 Stamp Paper

 Before
The District Magistrate, Balrampur

AFFIDAVIT
I Radha Devi W/o Ram Bahadur Aged About 42 Years, R/o Vill-

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula, District

Balrampur do hereby solemnly affirm and state as Under

(1). That I am an elected member of Gram Panchayat

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar,

(2). That in the Gram Sabha of the deponent Gata No. 740 was

measured earlier and at present it’s a vacant playground

(3). That there is no harm to the Gram Sabha by the Petrol Pump

instead of the proposed Kisan Sewa Kendra in Gata No. 740

which is in the name of Parvez Ahmed S/o Md. Omar

(4). That there is a political and personal enmity Gram Pradhan

Smt. Mehrunnisha and Shri Parvez Ahmed between regarding

brick kiln

(5). That a pakka house was built years ago by the registered

owner of Gata No. 740

(6). That a passing way of length 40 x 60 Kadi has been to the

playground and it is in use at present.

That I, Deponent affirm that the para 1 to 6 of the affidavit are

true and are based on my personal knowledge

Place, Tehsil, Parganah- Utraula

Dated: Radha Devi

Deponent

INDIAN NON-JUDICIAL

On Rs. 10 Stamp Paper

 Before
The District Magistrate, Balrampur

AFFIDAVIT
I Nirmala Devi W/o Nibar Aged About 39 Years, R/o Vill-

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula, District

Balrampur do hereby solemnly affirm and state as Under

(1). That I am an elected member of Gram Panchayat

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar,

(2). That in the Gram Sabha of the deponent Gata No. 740 was

measured earlier and at present it’s a vacant playground

(3). That there is no harm to the Gram Sabha by the Petrol Pump

instead of the proposed Kisan Sewa Kendra in Gata No. 740

which is in the name of Parvez Ahmed S/o Md. Omar

(4). That there is a political and personal enmity Gram Pradhan

Smt. Mehrunnisha and Shri Parvez Ahmed between regarding

brick kiln

(5). That a pakka house was built years ago by the registered

owner of Gata No. 740

(6). That a passing way of length 40 x 60 Kadi has been to the

playground and it is in use at present.

That I, Deponent affirm that the para 1 to 6 of the affidavit are

true and are based on my personal knowledge

Place, Tehsil, Parganah- Utraula

Dated: Nirmala Devi

Deponent

INDIAN NON-JUDICIAL

On Rs. 10 Stamp Paper

 Before
The District Magistrate, Balrampur

AFFIDAVIT
I Attaullah S/o Sannaullah Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vill-

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula, District

Balrampur do hereby solemnly affirm and state as Under

(1). That I am an elected member of Gram Panchayat

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar,

(2). That in the Gram Sabha of the deponent Gata No. 740 was

measured earlier and at present it’s a vacant playground

(3). That there is no harm to the Gram Sabha by the Petrol Pump

instead of the proposed Kisan Sewa Kendra in Gata No. 740

which is in the name of Parvez Ahmed S/o Md. Omar

(4). That there is a political and personal enmity Gram Pradhan

Smt. Mehrunnisha and Shri Parvez Ahmed between regarding

brick kiln

(5). That a pakka house was built years ago by the registered

owner of Gata No. 740

(6). That a passing way of length 40 x 60 Kadi has been to the

playground and it is in use at present.

That I, Deponent affirm that the para 1 to 6 of the affidavit are

true and are based on my personal knowledge

Place, Tehsil, Parganah- Utraula

Dated: Attaullah
Deponent

INDIAN NON-JUDICIAL

On Rs. 10 Stamp Paper

 Before
The District Magistrate, Balrampur

AFFIDAVIT
I Meena Devi W/o Ram Lotan Aged About 38 Years, R/o Vill-

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula, District

Balrampur do hereby solemnly affirm and state as Under

(1). That I am an elected member of Gram Panchayat

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar,

(2). That in the Gram Sabha of the deponent Gata No. 740 was

measured earlier and at present it’s a vacant playground

(3). That there is no harm to the Gram Sabha by the Petrol Pump

instead of the proposed Kisan Sewa Kendra in Gata No. 740

which is in the name of Parvez Ahmed S/o Md. Omar

(4). That there is a political and personal enmity Gram Pradhan

Smt. Mehrunnisha and Shri Parvez Ahmed between regarding

brick kiln

(5). That a pakka house was built years ago by the registered

owner of Gata No. 740

(6). That a passing way of length 40 x 60 Kadi has been to the

playground and it is in use at present.

That I, Deponent affirm that the para 1 to 6 of the affidavit are

true and are based on my personal knowledge

Place, Tehsil, Parganah- Utraula

Dated: Meena Devi

Deponent

INDIAN NON-JUDICIAL
 On Rs. 10 Stamp Paper

Before
The District Magistrate, Balrampur

AFFIDAVIT
I Taqir Ahmed S/o Riyaj Ahmed Aged About 46 Years, R/o Vill-

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula, District

Balrampur do hereby solemnly affirm and state as Under

(1). That I am an elected member of Gram Panchayat

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar,

(2). That in the Gram Sabha of the deponent Gata No. 740 was

measured earlier and at present it’s a vacant playground

(3). That there is no harm to the Gram Sabha by the Petrol Pump

instead of the proposed Kisan Sewa Kendra in Gata No. 740

which is in the name of Parvez Ahmed S/o Md. Omar

(4). That there is a political and personal enmity Gram Pradhan

Smt. Mehrunnisha and Shri Parvez Ahmed between regarding

brick kiln

(5). That a pakka house was built years ago by the registered

owner of Gata No. 740

(6). That a passing way of length 40 x 60 Kadi has been to the

playground and it is in use at present.

That I, Deponent affirm that the para 1 to 6 of the affidavit are

true and are based on my personal knowledge

Place, Tehsil, Parganah- Utraula

Dated: Radha Devi

Deponent

INDIAN NON-JUDICIAL

On Rs. 10 Stamp Paper

 Before
The District Magistrate, Balrampur

AFFIDAVIT
I Usha Devi W/o Pancham Aged About 39 Years, R/o Vill-

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula, District

Balrampur do hereby solemnly affirm and state as Under

(1). That I am an elected member of Gram Panchayat

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar,

(2). That in the Gram Sabha of the deponent Gata No. 740 was

measured earlier and at present it’s a vacant playground

(3). That there is no harm to the Gram Sabha by the Petrol Pump

instead of the proposed Kisan Sewa Kendra in Gata No. 740

which is in the name of Parvez Ahmed S/o Md. Omar

(4). That there is a political and personal enmity Gram Pradhan

Smt. Mehrunnisha and Shri Parvez Ahmed between regarding

brick kiln

(5). That a pakka house was built years ago by the registered

owner of Gata No. 740

(6). That a passing way of length 40 x 60 Kadi has been to the

playground and it is in use at present.

That I, Deponent affirm that the para 1 to 6 of the affidavit are

true and are based on my personal knowledge

Place, Tehsil, Parganah- Utraula

Dated: Usha Devi

Deponent

INDIAN NON-JUDICIAL

On Rs. 10 Stamp Paper

 Before
The District Magistrate, Balrampur

AFFIDAVIT
I Mehfuj Rehman S/o Shukuru Aged About 48 Years, R/o Vill-

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula, District

Balrampur do hereby solemnly affirm and state as Under

(1). That I am an elected member of Gram Panchayat

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar,

(2). That in the Gram Sabha of the deponent Gata No. 740 was

measured earlier and at present it’s a vacant playground

(3). That there is no harm to the Gram Sabha by the Petrol Pump

instead of the proposed Kisan Sewa Kendra in Gata No. 740

which is in the name of Parvez Ahmed S/o Md. Omar

(4). That there is a political and personal enmity Gram Pradhan

Smt. Mehrunnisha and Shri Parvez Ahmed between regarding

brick kiln

(5). That a pakka house was built years ago by the registered

owner of Gata No. 740

(6). That a passing way of length 40 x 60 Kadi has been to the

playground and it is in use at present.

That I, Deponent affirm that the para 1 to 6 of the affidavit are

true and are based on my personal knowledge

Place, Tehsil, Parganah- Utraula

Dated: Mehfuj Rehman

Deponent

INDIAN NON-JUDICIAL

On Rs. 10 Stamp Paper

 Before
The District Magistrate, Balrampur

AFFIDAVIT
I Ramhet S/o Ram Adhewar Aged About 59 Years, R/o Vill-

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula, District

Balrampur do hereby solemnly affirm and state as Under

(1). That I am an elected member of Gram Panchayat

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar,

(2). That in the Gram Sabha of the deponent Gata No. 740 was

measured earlier and at present it’s a vacant playground

(3). That there is no harm to the Gram Sabha by the Petrol Pump

instead of the proposed Kisan Sewa Kendra in Gata No. 740

which is in the name of Parvez Ahmed S/o Md. Omar

(4). That there is a political and personal enmity Gram Pradhan

Smt. Mehrunnisha and Shri Parvez Ahmed between regarding

brick kiln

(5). That a pakka house was built years ago by the registered

owner of Gata No. 740

(6). That a passing way of length 40 x 60 Kadi has been to the

playground and it is in use at present.

That I, Deponent affirm that the para 1 to 6 of the affidavit are

true and are based on my personal knowledge

Place, Tehsil, Parganah- Utraula

Dated: Ramhet
Deponent

INDIAN NON-JUDICIAL

On Rs. 10 Stamp Paper

 Before
The District Magistrate, Balrampur

AFFIDAVIT
I Eshanullah S/o Rashid Aged About 42 Years, R/o Vill-

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula, District

Balrampur do hereby solemnly affirm and state as Under

(1). That I am an elected member of Gram Panchayat

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar,

(2). That in the Gram Sabha of the deponent Gata No. 740 was

measured earlier and at present it’s a vacant playground

(3). That there is no harm to the Gram Sabha by the Petrol Pump

instead of the proposed Kisan Sewa Kendra in Gata No. 740

which is in the name of Parvez Ahmed S/o Md. Omar

(4). That there is a political and personal enmity Gram Pradhan

Smt. Mehrunnisha and Shri Parvez Ahmed between regarding

brick kiln

(5). That a pakka house was built years ago by the registered

owner of Gata No. 740

(6). That a passing way of length 40 x 60 Kadi has been to the

playground and it is in use at present.

That I, Deponent affirm that the para 1 to 6 of the affidavit are

true and are based on my personal knowledge

Place, Tehsil, Parganah- Utraula

Dated: Eshanullah
Deponent

Stamp Duty of Rs 5
 In The Court of Addl. Dist. Magistrate /Deputy Director of

Consolidation, Balrampur (Judicial)

Surveillance No. 764/187/17-18, U/s 48(1) of U.P Consolidation

of Holdings Act

Jankiraman Vs. Nanku & Ors.

Vill-Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula,

District Balrampur

AFFIDAVIT

I Usha Devi W/o Pancham Aged About 38 years Vill-

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula, District

Balrampur do solemnly affirm as under

(1). That I am an elected member of ward no .1 of Gram

Panchayat- Gamafatmajot. That the said proposal dated

09,05.2018 was passed without publication and agenda in an

open meeting contrary to the rules. It is further stated that no a

meeting was held in the chaupal of Pradhan, no proposal was

unanimously passed and no meeting was convened on

09.05.2018 at Gram panchayat- -Gamafatmajot

(2). That the said proposal got signed by the deponent against the

will of the deponent by stating that the proposal was for the
construction of toilets and Nallas etc. The proposal was read to

the deponent which did not mention anything about hospital or

on behalf of the Gram Sabha. It is further stated the abovesaid

remark in the proposal if forwarded is fake and illegal. I do not

support the abovesaid proposal.

That I, Deponent affirm that the para 1 to 6 of the affidavit are

true and are based on my personal knowledge

Dated: 21.06.2018

Usha Devi

Deponent

Stamp Duty of Rs 5
 In The Court of Addl. Dist. Magistrate /Deputy Director of

Consolidation, Balrampur (Judicial)

Surveillance No. 764/187/17-18, U/s 48(1) of U.P Consolidation

of Holdings Act

Jankiraman Vs. Nanku & Ors.

Vill-Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula,

District Balrampur

AFFIDAVIT

I Ramhet S/o Ram Adhewar, Aged About 58 years, Vill-

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula, District

Balrampur do solemnly affirm as under

(1). That I am an elected member of ward no .1 of Gram

Panchayat- Gamafatmajot. That the said proposal dated

09,05.2018 was passed without publication and agenda in an

open meeting contrary to the rules. It is further stated that no a

meeting was held in the chaupal of Pradhan, no proposal was

unanimously passed and no meeting was convened on

09.05.2018 at Gram panchayat- -Gamafatmajot

(2). That the said proposal got signed by the deponent against the

will of the deponent by stating that the proposal was for the
construction of toilets and Nallas etc. The proposal was read to

the deponent which did not mention anything about hospital or

on behalf of the Gram Sabha. It is further stated the abovesaid

remark in the proposal if forwarded is fake and illegal. I do not

support the abovesaid proposal.

That I, Deponent affirm that the para 1 to 6 of the affidavit are

true and are based on my personal knowledge

Dated: 21.06.2018

Ramhet
Deponent

Stamp Duty of Rs 5
 In The Court of Addl. Dist. Magistrate /Deputy Director of

Consolidation, Balrampur (Judicial)

Surveillance No. 764/187/17-18, U/s 48(1) of U.P Consolidation

of Holdings Act

Jankiraman Vs. Nanku & Ors.

Vill-Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula,

District Balrampur

AFFIDAVIT

I Nirmala Devi W/o Nibar, Aged About 38 years, Vill-

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula, District

Balrampur do solemnly affirm as under

(1). That I am an elected member of ward no .1 of Gram

Panchayat- Gamafatmajot. That the said proposal dated

09,05.2018 was passed without publication and agenda in an

open meeting contrary to the rules. It is further stated that no a

meeting was held in the chaupal of Pradhan, no proposal was

unanimously passed and no meeting was convened on

09.05.2018 at Gram panchayat- -Gamafatmajot

(2). That the said proposal got signed by the deponent against the

will of the deponent by stating that the proposal was for the
construction of toilets and Nallas etc. The proposal was read to

the deponent which did not mention anything about hospital or

on behalf of the Gram Sabha. It is further stated the abovesaid

remark in the proposal if forwarded is fake and illegal. I do not

support the abovesaid proposal.

That I, Deponent affirm that the para 1 to 6 of the affidavit are

true and are based on my personal knowledge

Dated: 21.06.2018

Nirmala Devi
Deponent

Stamp Duty of Rs 5

In The Court of Addl. Dist. Magistrate /Deputy Director of

Consolidation, Balrampur (Judicial)

Surveillance No. 764/187/17-18, U/s 48(1) of U.P Consolidation

of Holdings Act

Jankiraman Vs. Nanku & Ors.

Vill-Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula,

District Balrampur

AFFIDAVIT

I Meena Devi W/o Ram Lotan, Aged About 46 years, Vill-

Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula, District

Balrampur do solemnly affirm as under

(1). That I am an elected member of ward no .1 of Gram

Panchayat- Gamafatmajot. That the said proposal dated

09,05.2018 was passed without publication and agenda in an

open meeting contrary to the rules. It is further stated that no a

meeting was held in the chaupal of Pradhan, no proposal was

unanimously passed and no meeting was convened on

09.05.2018 at Gram panchayat- -Gamafatmajot

(2). That the said proposal got signed by the deponent against the

will of the deponent by stating that the proposal was for the

construction of toilets and Nallas etc. The proposal was read to

the deponent which did not mention anything about hospital or

on behalf of the Gram Sabha. It is further stated the abovesaid

remark in the proposal if forwarded is fake and illegal. I do not

support the abovesaid proposal.

That I, Deponent affirm that the para 1 to 6 of the affidavit are

true and are based on my personal knowledge

Dated: 21.06.2018

Meena Devi
Deponent

In The Court of Addl. Dist. Magistrate (Judicial)/Deputy

Director of Consolidation, Balrampur

Surveillance No. 764/187/17-18, U/s 48(1) of U.P Consolidation

of Holdings Act

Jankiraman Vs. Nanku & Ors.

Vill-Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula,

District Balrampur

JUDGMENT

This Surveillance Chakdar No. 168 was filed by Shri

Janakiraman Place Janakikunj Vasaravarakaar Mahandh

Virendra Kumar Das Chela Mahant Raghunathdas R/o Village-

Laukiyatahir, Parganah- Sadullanagar, Tehsil- Utraula, District-

Balrampur, against Nanku S/o Ramanand and Abubakar S/o

Kamaruddin and Mata Prasad S/o Bhugel and Fahaian S/o

Hasan Ali and Government of Uttar Pradesh U/s 48(1) of U.P

Consolidation of Holdings Act. During hearing earlier officer

made Parvez Ahmed and Kamarunnisha a party and disposed the

suit by order dated 20.01.1986/20.06.1986. While accepting the

Surveillance case of Jankiraman passed an order of amendments

in the chaks. in which the order for revision of the checks was

accepted while accepting the surveillance of Janakiraman.

Smt Mehrunnisha Gram Pradhan while presenting the

application along with the time barred application and affidavit

on 20.12.2017. It was stated that in the above suit Gram Sabha

was not made a party and neither they were served a notice in

the matter where the land of the village with Gata No. 875, 881,

882, 883, 890 which is a precious land and was kept as

playground of the village was severed from the said Gata Number

by the impugned order and was merged in Chakdar No. 23, 90,

278, 288 which is at distance from the road. It was prayed that

the present application be allowed and the order dated

20.01.1986 be set aside.

After hearing the application on 24.05.2018, the application of

the Gram Sabha was accepted giving the benefit of the Limitation

act and Bhanupratap Verma's application was not affected by the

said order, the application dated 09.03.18 was set aside and the

objection to surveillance and was fixed for arguments.

While submitting an objection on 30.05.18 by the village Pradhan

Mehrunnisha, it was stated that the original Gata of Sri

Janakiraman has been secured on the way, which was appraised

and derailed. At Settlement level, he was offered a chak on the

bypass, which was changed by the consolidation officer and

proposed a chak at a distance. The administrative officer of

consolidation dismissed the appeal. Against which surveillance

was presented by him. That was accepted. The applicant

demanded greedily the flying chak in exchange for the Chak that

has been secured on the way. There is no justification to make

Principal Haii ismail of Inter College-Gamafatmajot a party. It is

not justified on behalf of the Principal to ask for the chak in

Surveillance. It was prayed to dismiss the applicant’s application.

On behalf of applicant Shri Jankiraman, Gram Pradhan

Mehrunnisha opposed the application by stating that he was

given a chak in sector-8 at Settlement level in Gata No. 812 and

813. Applicant’s Gata No. was proposed in the road, in this way,

he was not given a chak next to the said land and was given away

a land of non-considerable importance. He asked for the land

near the main Gata No. The benefit of the limitation was accepted

on 29.09.84 at Rs 20/-. The applicant was given different chak at

Consolidation officers alevel from which he was not satisfied. Haji

Ismail Inter College has been made a party. His statement is that

if the land of an account holder is removed for public interest

then flying Gata can also be given to him keeping in view its

convenience. Pradhan Mehrunnisha is attempting to illegally

interfere with the proposal of the land Management Committee,

because of her personal enmity with the intention of harassing

and upsetting the parties due to political reasons. There objection

should be quashed.

I heard the arguments of the opposition and carefully observed

the village records and inspected the site personally.

On behalf of the applicant Jankiraman his learned counsel

argues that this case has been raised by the Gram Sabha against

order dated 20.01.86 after 31 years due to political enmity.

Considering his convenience, the then Deputy Director of

consolidation, having his important land reserved in the road,

accepted the monitoring and provided the land beside the original

Gata on which his house and shops are built. The order of

Deputy Director Consolidation dated 20.01.86 has been allotted

in Lieu of his important land at the same place and no

irregularities have been done in it. Let the order dated 20.01.86

to be kept operative.

On behalf of Chakdar Number 278 Parvez Ahmed S/0 Md. Omar

and Chakdar Number-50 Kamarunnisha W/o Md. Omar learned

advocate argues that the order has been passed on merit basis

after hearing on 20.01.86, in which the state government was

made a party. Which was followed at the same time in the

records. The order was passed after hearing the government

advocate. Under the said case Gata No- 875,881,882.883,890 is

not the property of Gram Sabha but the land belongs to applicant

Janakiraman and other, which was secured as a playground

during the consolidation which was attributed by Deputy

Director consolidation which was decided on 20.01.86 after the

hearing the case. According to Para 127-128 of the manual of the

village Panchayat it has been filed after 31 years without the

permission of the district magistrate without passing the

resolution of the land Management Committee. In fact, 11

members of the Gram Sabha have given their affidavit against it.

Smt. Mehrunnisha is Gram Pradhan from last 10 years. She was

aware about the order since 1966. The land which was given by

Deputy Director of Consolidation has been used by all the

chakdar’s, some of them had made their own house and others

had sold it and it was used by the person who had purchased the

said land, Allahabad Bank Branch and Smt. Kittabunnisha

Educational Society school was already there.

He also argued that the then Deputy Director consolidation had

given the playing field of the road in the interest of children, so

that the children do not come crashing down on the road while
playing. For this reason, the Chakdars were given different chaks

by him. But the path was not given from the front of the

playground, the path was given from the back of the school.

Despite this, if presently it is necessary to give away the path

from the front than the path can be given from the land of any

chakdars. No one will object against it. No deduction has been

made in the land which was reserved for the playground. Rather

instead of 0.34 acre of land for the field 0.39 acre of the land has

been secured from the account holders. There is no irregularity in

it. This change was made keeping in mind the interest of

children.

It was argued on behalf of Md. Shafi by his learned advocate that

this Suit has been filed after 37 years due to political reasons.

The claim has been filed by the village Pradhan without the

proposal of the land Management Committee. After the order

dated 20.01.1986 passed by the Deputy Director consolidation

the ownership of said land was transferred on the name of

respected person which is there in the record and which was also

published in section 52 of village Manual Gumafatmajot dated

01.12.1984.. The land which was wrongly secured in the

playground, after information from the Chakdars Janakiraman

and others of his numbers, the Deputy Director consolidation

accepted the claim and return the land of the roadside account

holder to the original account holders. Against which no writ

petition was made by any party. Thus, the above order is final.

There is no difference in the area of the playground land. In view

of the interest of the children, the then Deputy Director

consolidation displayed the original chakdars with chak on their

wheels and this backwards in the playground with a view to

make the children do not crash on the road while playing. There

is no other interest in it. The playground remains vacant even

today in which children play. This suit has been re-filed only

because of political enmity. The information of the Deputy

Director Consolidation order dated 20.01.86 was from that time.

Somehow at the time of construction of house by Chakdars no

objection was raised. Mehrunnisha is the Village Pradhan for the

last 10 years. After the complete knowledge of the order, the

intention is to harass and annoy all the Chakdars it ihas been

filed. It is prayed that the order dated 20.01.86-18 be kept as it

is.

Khan Abutalha, Hajirakhatoon and Khan Md. Ibrahim of

opposition while submitting the affidavit, stated that they are the
legitimate heir of Abbukar S/o Kamaruddin. The then Deputy

Director of Consolidation had entered the Gata No. 740/0-7D.

Presently the idea of passage is to reach the playground is from

the main road. In order to resolve the dispute, they arewilling to

give 20 feet wide land voluntarily to Chak road from his chartered

Chak in the direction of North South Main Road to the

playground.

This is clear from the arguments, site plan and village record

presented by the counsel for the opposition, that the new Gata

number 740 made from the old Gata number 883 M etc. The

then Deputy Director consolidation, by its order dated 20.01.86

made the by chakdar number 23 Abubakar Son of kamaluddin

old Gata number 883 M/0-03 and 890 M / 0-04 Total Two kita

area 0-07 D and Chakdar number - 90 Mrs. Kamarunnisha wife

Md. Umar and Chakdar number 278 Parvez Ahmad's son Md.

Umar is old Gata number -875 M/0-05, 875 M/ 0-06, 881 M/ 0-

01, 882 M/0-04 Total four kita area 0.11 D and Chakdar No. 288

Fahain S/o Hasan Ali old Gata No. 881 M/0-02, 882 M/0-01,

883 M/0-04, 890 M/0-04 a total of 11 D was rejected and the

balance 0-39D was added from the account holders in the

playground. Due to which there is no difference in the area of

playground.

During the inspection of the site it was said by the people present

in the village that all the Chakdars have been holding their own

checks for 31 years. The arrangement of the path from the main

road to the playground will increase the usefulness of the

playground. He also said that the then Deputy Director

consolidation had inspected the site and extended the

playground backwards for the safety of the children. The path to

the playground is already available. However, if the route is

arranged through the main road then it would be more

appropriate. Due to any other amendment, the families of all

account-holders and banamandars, whose house is around 31

years old will be affected.

After considering the above facts, Abubakar's heirs made a

proposal for way out of their chak and other amendments in

terms of protecting children.In addition to the Chakdars number

- 23/19 Atullah , Ibrahams son of Abubakar and Shrimati Hajira

wife of late Abubakar, a new Gata number 740 from the village.

Area 0-025 H 40 kadi x 60 kadi path will be suitable so that the

children can reach the playground as early as possible. As far as

the villagers states that the arrangement was done by the then

Deputy Director consolidation after inspection of the site in view

of the safety of the children, I have agreed to this allocation of

chak by the then Deputy Director of Consolidation. Hence

Surveillance case of Jankiraman is accepted. Keeping the pre-

passed order intact, it seems appropriate to give way through the

main road.

ORDER

The above Surveillance case of Mr. Janakiraman is accepted.

Partial amendment to the pre-passed order dated

20.01.86/20.06.86 as indicated on chakdar No. -23/19, from the

new Gata No. -740, Area 0-025 H i.e. 40 Kadi x 60 Kadi is

secured as main road from the playground. The attached

amended table which bears my date signature will be part of the

order. The amendment affects the Gata Number 23/19 and the

route. Accordingly, the way should be marked by demarcating

boundaries on that land.

Dated: 28.07.2018

Sd/-

Ramanuj Singh
 Addl. Disst. Magistrate/ Deputy Director of Consolidation,

Balrampur

Gram Sabha …………………………….Petitioner

Vs.

Deputy Director of Consolidation ……………….Opposite Party

ANNEXURE NO.-2

In The Court Dr. Rambhajan, Deputy Director of

Consolidation, Gonda

Surveillance No. 764, U/s 48(1) of U.P Consolidation of Holdings

Act

Vill-Gamafatmajot, Parganah-Sadullanagar, Tehsil-Utraula,

District-Gonda

Jankiraman Vs. Nanku & Ors.

JUDGEMENT

This case has been presented against the order dated 15.06.1980

in Appeal No. 1636 which was passed U/s 48(1) of U.P

Consolidation of Holdings Act by Settlement Officer of

Consolidation, Mankapur, Gonda.

This application was not presented within the time limit against

which the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by order dated

26.06.1984 allowed the delay.

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the opposite Party and inspected all

the records filed by the opposite party.

Shri Janakiraman Place Raghunathdas R/o Village-

Laukiyatahir, Parganah- Sadullanagar, Tehsil- Utraula, District-

Balrampur has stated in Case No 168 that his good land was

kept for the use of village and in respect of that land the land

which was received by him was too far from the road, so it is

prayed that he should be provided with that kind of land upon

which he can construct a house. It was opposed by the opposite

counsel on the ground that the land which has been given to him

is on the main road. So, there is no need of any kind of

amendment in it. In this case one more application has been filed

by Principal of Haji Ismail College, Sadullanagar in which he has

prayed to make him a party in the present case. After

consideration this application is allowed as there has been no

objection against it.

After observing all the documents I came to the conclusion that

according to the applicants claim his land is located too far from

the road so, his land should be removed from the Chak No. 220

and it should be given in Chak No. 168. So, it is allowed and he

has been allotted the land in Chak No. 168 and there is also an

amendment in Chak No. 288, 278, 60 and Chakdar No. 23 so

that the path of the school increases.

The above application is allowed and thereafter the amended

table has been prepared, upon which my signature and a part of

the order will be present.

All the order passed here should be complied accordingly, and

demarcation of boundary line should be done and all other

affected parties can present their objection under 23 illegible.

Dated: 20.01.1986

Dr. Ram Bhajan

Deputy Director of Consolidation

Gonda