Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 375 (UTT)

MATLOOB v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

2013-06-25

B.S.Verma

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Mr. Anirudh Bhatt, Brief Holder for respondent no.1, Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocate for respondent nos.5/1 to 5/3 and Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate for respondent nos.6/1 to 6/5 and 7. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 18.12.1998 passed by Assistant Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar, Camp at Roorkee, whereby the chak no.59 allotted to Zaheer has been amended. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition are, that Zaheer was alloted chak no.59 by the Consolidation Officer (for short, C.O.). Said chak no.59 was purchased by the petitioners from Zaheer by a registered sale deed dated 6.10.1998. Against the allotment of chak, revision no.204 was preferred by Sayeed Ahmed before the Assistant Director of Consolidation. Two revisions bearing nos.205 and 245 were also preferred before the Assistant Director of Consolidation. All these revisions were heard and disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 18.12.1998. In revision no.204, chak no.59 alloted to Zaheer has been changed. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners were not made party in the revision and before passing of the impugned judgment and order no opportunity of hearing was afforded either to Zaheer or to the petitioners. 5. In reply to the averments made in the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Sayeed Ahmad, wherein at para-5 it is stated that the revisional court had issued notices to Zaheer (Chak holder of chak no.59) for hearing, which was also served on him. The answering respondents had no knowledge of the alleged sale deed, whereby the petitioners have purchased Zaheer’s chak no.59. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 6/1 to 6/5 and 7 has contended that inspite of notice, Zaheer did not appear before the court concerned. Therefore, considering the fact that chak no.59 was given to Zaheer at a place where he was having larger area of his original holding, and he was given plot nos.49, 50, 123/1 and 123/2 which was left in Bachat by the C.O. thus, no illegality has been committed by the revisionist. 7. Therefore, considering the fact that chak no.59 was given to Zaheer at a place where he was having larger area of his original holding, and he was given plot nos.49, 50, 123/1 and 123/2 which was left in Bachat by the C.O. thus, no illegality has been committed by the revisionist. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. This fact is not disputed that petitioners had purchased chak no.59 from Zaheer. This fact is also not disputed that the name of the petitioners was recorded in revenue records after the date of passing the impugned order. 9. By perusal of the notice annexed with the counter affidavit as C.A.1, it reveals that the said notice was issued by the Consolidation Officer and not by the revisional court. Further, there is no mention of the case and the particulars of party contesting the case for which Zaheer was asked to put his appearance in the court for hearing. In the absence of any of these above details, the notice issued to Zaheer cannot be said to be a valid notice. 10. From the above, it is clear that Zaheer as well as the present petitioners, whose name was recorded in the revenue records on the date of passing the impugned order, were neither impleaded in the revision nor heard before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.1998 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer Muzaffarnagar, as against Zaheer in respect of Chak no.59, is quashed. Rest part of the judgment and order is maintained. Revision No.204, 205 and 245 are remanded back to the revisional court to decide the matter afresh after hearing all the parties concerned including the purchaser/petitioners since the land has been sold out to the petitioners by Zaheer and their name is recorded in the revenue records in respect of Chak no.59 of Zaheer which was purchased by the present petitioners. The petitioners are also given liberty to move impleadment application in the revision and the revisional court shall direct the revisionists to array the petitioners being the aggrieved party. The revisional court is further directed to decide the case expeditiously. Till the revision is decided, parties shall maintain status quo.