THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1016 of 2010. Chaudhary Bharat Singh Institute for Teacher Education Courses Jhabrera Town, District Haridwar (Uttarakhand) and another. … Petitioners. Vs. National Council for Teachers Education (Appellate Authority) and two others. …Respondents. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents-N.C.T.E. Date August 31, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief:- (a) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing impugned order dated 7-6-2010 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Appeal No. F. No. 89-327/2010-Appeal A 17888 and order dated 12-4-2010 passed by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the petition). (b) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to grant recognition of 100 seats (2010-2011 Session) to the petitioner no. 2 to run/conduct/impart B.Ed. Course after taking endowment and reserve funds from petitioner no. 2. (c) To pass such an order which this Hon’ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. By the impugned order dated 12-4-2010, the Northern Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education (NRC/NCTE for short)- respondent no. 3 has rejected the application 2 for grant of recognition for B.Ed. course of one year duration under Section 14(1) of the N.C.T.E. Act 1993 in its 157th meeting held on 24th to 27th March 2010 on the ground- 1. certified copy of legally valid land document has not been submitted and 2. Changed Land Use (CLU) is not submitted. Aggrieved by the said order dated 12-4-2010, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no.1. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 7-6-2010 on the same ground and the order under challenge was upheld. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the respondent-authority has committed a manifest error of law in not appreciating the revenue documents produced by the petitioners. Since the village is under consolidation, the Khatauni would be prepared after Section 52 Notification is issued under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) after issuance of CH-45. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the consolidation proceeding in the village started when the State Government issued a notification under Section 4(2) of the Act and as per provisions of Section 5(2)(a) of the Act, all proceedings pertaining to the land of village under consolidation pending either before the civil or the revenue courts shall abate. The basic Khatauni, which was prepared by the revenue authority prior to the consolidation, CH-5 is issued to the farmers to file their objection regarding their title and to correct the entries. If any objection is filed, then under Section 9 of the Act, the Consolidation Officer has to decide the objection of the parties and has to pass an order regarding the title. In the case at hand also, the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20-11-2009 (Annexure-4 to the petition) passed the order in favour of the petitioner that the land be recorded in the name of the petitioner. The order dated 20-11-2009 was partially corrected by order dated 16-3-2010, thereby the Consolidation Officer has recorded the land in question in the name of Chaudhary Bharat Singh Institute of Teacher Training Courses. The 3 Consolidation Officer Roorkee has also issued a certificate on 22-4- 2010 certifying that the land in question is recorded in the name of the petitioner no. 1-Chaudhary Bharat Singh Institute of Teacher Education Courses Jhabrera, which has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-9 to the petition. The completion certificate of the construction of the petitioner-institute has also been annexed as Annexure-10 to the petition. It is pertinent to mention here that the title proceeding of the land in question culminated when the Consolidation Officer concerned passed an order in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 20-11-2009, which was subsequently corrected by order dated 16-3- 2010. That order was not challenged by any one and the same has attained finality. On the basis of those orders, mutation was made in CH-23, which indicated the title of the petitioner during consolidation proceeding. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner filed photo copies of the documents of title and that there were some discrepancies in the entries. On that basis the application of the petitioner was rejected. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the documents as required by the N.C.T.E. ought to have been submitted within a period of six months. There is concrete evidence that the land is recorded in the name of the petitioner- institution in the revenue record, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent-NRC/NCTE not to have rejected the application of the petitioner thereby granting recognition to run the B.Ed. one year duration course on the ground mentioned above. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed before this Court, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners has some force. Since the consolidation proceeding is on in the village and during consolidation proceeding, the Khatauni is prepared after Section 52 Notification on the basis of Ch-45. During that period the 4 orders passed either by the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer Consolidation or the Deputy Director of Consolidation would indicate the title during settlement proceeding. In the case at hand, the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20-11-2009, which was corrected by order dated 16-3-2010 passed an order in favour of the petitioner-institution to record its name and the name of the petitioner- institution was subsequently mutated in CH-23. This is a document indicating the holding of the petitioner institution during consolidation proceeding. The Consolidation Officer as well as the Executive Officer concerned have issued certificate to the effect that the construction of the petitioner institution has been completed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the name of the petitioner institute was recorded by the Consolidation Officer and entry was made in CH-23. Orders passed by Consolidation Officer dated 20-11-2009 and 16-3-2010 and CH-23 shall be treated to be the documents of title of the petitioner institution, therefore, the respondent-authority has to accept the said document as the document of title. Accordingly, the orders impugned are set aside. It is directed that if the petitioners file certified copies of the two orders passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 20-11-2009 and 16-3-2010 as well as certified copy of CH-23 of the land pertaining to the petitioner-institution and certificate issued by the Consolidation Officer and Executive Officer regarding change of land use, the respondent no. 3 shall not reject the application for recognition to run B.Ed. one year duration course on that ground and shall reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of recognition for running B.Ed. courses, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with certified copies of the documents referred to above. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP