Alteration in gata without notice. I was not informed about the changes in my gata and was not included in the revision process, which I believe is fundamentally unfair. My neighbor took the initiative to submit a revision to the Deputy District Director of Consolidation in Ayodhya without my knowledge or consent. This move resulted in the Deputy District Director ordering the transfer of part of my gata, a decision that holds significant implications for my property rights and future stability. This decision affects me deeply because when I subsequently appealed to the Settlement Officer for Consolidation to contest this unwarranted action, my appeal was dismissed outright. The grounds for this dismissal were that the gata number had already been altered by the DDC, thereby rendering any further changes impossible. This situation has left me feeling helpless as this was the only reason given for my appeal’s dismissal, suggesting that my voice and concerns were overlooked.
It is disheartening to note that my gata comprises a minjumla account with sixteen tenure holders, indicating a shared responsibility and collective rights over the land. One of those tenure holders, who has been particularly insistent, expressed a desire to transfer his gata number 1298/2 to 397. In his pursuit of this goal, he decided to file a suit with the consolidation officer, only to come away empty-handed without any relief or resolution. Frustrated by the lack of progress and perhaps feeling a sense of urgency, he went ahead and appealed, but he did so without including me in the process, which I see as a significant oversight.
Compounding matters, when a nali was marked on his gata 397—an indication of some official recognition—he seized the opportunity to file a revision to the DDC, naming only the State of Uttar Pradesh in his revision, thus excluding all other relevant parties, including myself. The DDC, in a ruling that has left me feeling sidelined, ultimately decided in his favor, announcing that the nali had been exchanged for gata number 1298/2. Now, I find myself unhappy and disturbed by the DDC’s order, feeling as though my rights have been trampled upon.
In the wake of these events, some people have advised me to take legal action by filing a writ petition in the High Court to seek justice. However, I am now left pondering what my next steps should be in order to rectify this situation and regain my stake in my gata.
Asked from: Uttar Pradesh
The District Deputy Consolidation officer has committed grave error while deciding the revision petition. According to section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holding Act, it is mandatory to serve a notice to all affected person to represent in the revision petition. Your gata has been altered by the order of DDC passed in revision. You got no notice from the DDC which strikes at the root of the case. It is settled law that gata cannot be altered or amended more than one.
You should prefer a writ petition in the High Court for setting aside of the order of the revisional court. Your right has been curtailed by the erroneous order and also you have no remedy except the writ petition. In the writ petition you have to prima facie prove your grievance. If the court finds that alteration in gata is without your notice, the court may quash the order of the DDC. You have to prove that your grievance is genuine which must be considered by the SOC.
Also read: Basic features of consolidation