Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1210 (ALL)

Hari Ram v. D. D. C.

2014-04-15

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed today in Court, are taken on record. 2. I have heard Shri R.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.P. Dwivedi, learned Advocate, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent no. 2 Smt. Ranju Maurya, who has been described as the contesting respondent in the array of the parties. 3. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally without issuing any notices to the respondent nos. 3 to 12. However it will be open for the said respondents who are stated to be formal parties to file a recall application, if they are aggrieved by this order. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the orders dated 10.12.2012 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision no. 880 under Section 41 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (Ranju vs. Hari Ram and Others) and the order dated 22.2.2014 whereby the Deputy Director of Consolidation, has dismissed the restoration application filed by the petitioner Hari Ram. 5. The writ petition arises out of an objection filed by the contesting respondent no. 2 on the ground that the area of her chak was short by 0.32 hectares on the spot while the area of the petitioner's chak contained an excess 0.71 hectares and that this discrepancy in area required correction. The Consolidation Officer treating the said objection to one under Section 20(1) of the Act allowed the same by an ex parte order passed on 04.02.2013. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a restoration application and he also preferred an appeal against the same. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation by the order dated 18.09.2013 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Consequent thereto the restoration application was dismissed as not pressed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 2.12.2013. The contesting respondent no. 2 preferred revision no. 880 against the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. 7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 10.12.2012 allowed the revision on the ground that since the petitioner had preferred a recall application before the Consolidation Officer, his appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was not maintainable, in view of the provisions of Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 10.12.2012 allowed the revision on the ground that since the petitioner had preferred a recall application before the Consolidation Officer, his appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was not maintainable, in view of the provisions of Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Consequently the revision was allowed and the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation set aside. The consequential recall application filed by the petitioner, was dismissed vide order dated 22.2.2014. Hence this writ petition. 8. Shri R.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the facts and circumstances narrated above he has been left remedyless and this has been occasioned due to the wrong legal advise given to the petitioner. Under the circumstances the petitioner is being penalized for no fault on his part. His restoration application has been dismissed as not pressed while the order passed in his favour by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, has been set aside on the ground that the appeal itself was not maintainable. In view of the above and also in view of the fact that admittedly the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was an ex parte order, it is sought to be submitted that the petitioner has been saddled with order against him without any opportunity of hearing. 9. Shri C.P. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents referring to the documents filed by him in the counter affidavit filed today has sought to defend the orders impugned. However, ultimately he has conceded that the petitioner is entitled to at least one opportunity of hearing. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is thought fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case to provide one opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In view of the same, the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass a fresh order on the merits of the rival claims after affording opportunity of hearing all the concerned parties. This exercise may be undertaken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation expeditiously preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. 11. This exercise may be undertaken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation expeditiously preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. 11. Accordingly and subject to the directions/ observations above, this writ petition is allowed apart.