CHANDRAMA PRASAD v. D D C AZAMGARH — 1995 DIGILAW 754 (ALL)

G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21-1-89 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation (D. D. C.), respondent No. 1 (Annexure 6 to the petition ). Further there is a prayer that a direction may be issued in the nature of a mandamus to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. 2. In this case, the consolidation proceedings are over. One Brij Raj Singh, respondent No. 4 gave an application dated 15-7- 88 (Annexure 1 to the petition) to the D. D. C. alleging that Gata No. 2673 was his original holding. By the order dated 21-5-83 passed by the D. D. C. on the application of one Pakhandi, Chak No. 468 was allotted to the applicant Brij Raj Singh. That was a rectangular Chak. But due to the bungling committed in the office by the Draftsman or the Consolidation Lekhpal, who demanded illegal gratification from him, which the applicant could not provide, the picture of the chak of the petitioners was changed and Chak No. 297 of Pakhandi was shown inside the chak of the applicant. The applicant was kept in dark. Therefore, he prayed that the map and the Chak should be corrected in accordance with the earlier orders of the Consolidation Officer. A report was called for from the Consoldiation Officer, who submitted his report dated 17-8-88 (Annexure 2 to the petition ). Prima facie, he found that a bungling had been done in the preparation of the map and record. He recommended for correction. 3. Chandrama Prasad, the petitioner No. 1, who is the son of Chithiu filed an application by way of objection (Annexure 3 to the petition) before the D. D. C. on 28-9-88, that no bungling had been done at his behest. In fact, the entries in the papers and the map were in pursuance of judicial orders passed in favour of Chithru. The proper enquiries had not been made by the Consolidation Officer. Again on 10- 10-88, Chandrama Prasad gave another application (Annexure 4 to the petition) to the D. D. C. that the records were available and they could be perused. But in fact, no such records were made available. 4. The proper enquiries had not been made by the Consolidation Officer. Again on 10- 10-88, Chandrama Prasad gave another application (Annexure 4 to the petition) to the D. D. C. that the records were available and they could be perused. But in fact, no such records were made available. 4. Thus after hearing the parties, the learned D. D. C. upheld the conclusion drawn by the Consolidation Officer and ordered for correction of the record. 5. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have come to this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. I find that there is some substance in this petition and it deserves to be allowed to that extent. 7. The main basis of the petitioners contention is that whatsover entries have been made, either in the records or in the map, were based on some judicial orders. Of course, judicial orders could not be filed before the D. D. C. The contention of the petitioners was that adequate opportunity was not afforded to the petitioners to produce the same. Even the original records were not perused by the D. D. C. Therefore, a wrong conclusion has been drawn against them. I find some force in this contention. 8. The order of the D. D. C. does not show that any reasonable effort was made by him to peruse the original records. He based his conclusions on the report of the Consolidation Officer only, with proper application of mind. When the orders passed by the D. D. C. were going to effect the rights of the petitioners, it was his bounden duty to have perused the original record and further he should have afforded adequate opportunity to petitioners to produce the judicial orders. On the basis of which, the petitioners were claiming rights in their favour and I think, for want of providing adequate hearing, which should be reasonable and adequate, the order suffers from illegality and it deserves to be quashed. 9. The order of the learned D. D. C. dated 21-1-89 is quashed accordingly. It is ordered that the learned DDC shall give an opportunity to the petitioners to produce the original judicial order on the basis of which, they were claiming the entries in their favour. He shall himself peruse the original record. 9. The order of the learned D. D. C. dated 21-1-89 is quashed accordingly. It is ordered that the learned DDC shall give an opportunity to the petitioners to produce the original judicial order on the basis of which, they were claiming the entries in their favour. He shall himself peruse the original record. This shall be done within 3 months from the date of production of this order. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the original record, personally the learned D. D. C. shall pass an order under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. In the circumstances of this case, cost is made easy. 10. Till the judicial order in pursuance of this Courts order passed today is passed by D. D. C. parties shall maintain status quo and the respondents possession shall not be disturbed. 11. A copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioners on payment of usual charges within a week. Petition allowed. .