Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2717 (ALL)

Suresh v. D. D. C.

2014-09-04

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.B. Singh, who appears for respondent No. 2. respondent No. 5 is represented by Sri Pramod Kumar Dubey. In view of the Office report dated 29.6.2009, service of notice upon respondent No. 4 is held to be sufficient. No one has put in appearance on her behalf. 2. As regards respondent No. 3, it is admitted to the parties that the interests of Smt. Rajkumari and Smt. Rajkishori, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, is common and, therefore, it is submitted that the matter can be heard and decided finally. Accordingly, I have proceeded to hear the parties to decide the matter finally. 3. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 4.6.2008, passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation (for short, DDC) in Revision No. 1085 (Suresh and another v. Smt. Rajkumari and others. 4. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows: "The dispute between the parties pertains to plot No. 46, having an area of 4 hectares 6 decimals, situated in village Chak Daud, Tappa Rate; Pargana Bhaupar, Tehsil Sahjanwa, district Gorakhpur, recorded in the basic year in the names of Sangram Singh, Smt. Rajkumari and Smt. Rajkishori. Three objections are said to have been filed under section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short, the Act). One objection was filed by Sangram Singh, claiming half share in the disputed khata. It was further claimed that the remaining half share belongs to Parasu Ram, Lalu and Chokhat, and that Rajkumari was wrongly recorded over the khata in question. Another objection was filed by Parasu Ram, Lalu and Chokhat claiming half share. A cross-objection appears to have been filed by Smt. Rajkumari, alleging that her name was rightly recorded in the basic year record." 5. The Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 28.6.1990, allowed the objection filed by the petitioners and Sangram Singh. The contesting respondents filed a restoration application, alleging that the order dated 28.6.1990 was ex parte. The Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 20.3.1991, allowed the restoration application, set aside the order dated 28.6.1990 and fixed a date for the parties to lead their evidence. Against this order, the appeal filed by Sangram Singh was dismissed by order dated 7.11.1998. 6. The Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 20.3.1991, allowed the restoration application, set aside the order dated 28.6.1990 and fixed a date for the parties to lead their evidence. Against this order, the appeal filed by Sangram Singh was dismissed by order dated 7.11.1998. 6. It appears that thereafter by order dated 10.12.1998 the objection filed by Sangram Singh was dismissed. The restoration application filed by Sangram Singh is said to have been dismissed for default by order dated 14.6.2001. Sangram Singh thereafter filed a revision against the order dated 10.12.1998 which was also dismissed for default. It is thereafter that on 25.2.2003 the petitioners are said to have filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (for short, SOC) challenging the order dated 20.3.1991. Another appeal was preferred against the order passed in proceedings under Rule 109-A of the Rules while the third appeal was preferred against the order dated 24.12.2002 passed on an application under section 42 of the Act. 7. The SOC by his order dated 7.3.2005 dismissed all the three appeals filed by the petitioners. The consequential revision was also dismissed by the order dated 17.3.2008. The consequence of this series of orders was that the objection filed by the petitioners stood revived as the order dated 20.3.1991, whereby the objections had been allowed, had been set aside on the restoration application of the contesting respondents. 8. The DDC in his order dated 17.3.2008 directed the parties to appear before the Consolidation Officer on 31.3.2008. It is thereafter that the contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application for amending the order dated 17.3.2008. This amendment was sought on the reasoning that since the objection filed by Sangram Singh had been dismissed and such order had attained finality, after the revision against the same was dismissed in default, no objection remained to be decided by the Consolidation Officer. 9. The DDC has by the impugned order allowed this application and modified the order dated 17.3.2008 and the direction contained in the order directing the parties to appear before the Consolidation Officer has been ordered to be expunged. 10. In the light of the aforementioned facts, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has. submitted that the modification is patently illegal. The DDC has by the impugned order allowed this application and modified the order dated 17.3.2008 and the direction contained in the order directing the parties to appear before the Consolidation Officer has been ordered to be expunged. 10. In the light of the aforementioned facts, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has. submitted that the modification is patently illegal. The objection of Sangram Singh, claiming half share might have been dismissed and such dismissal might have attained finality but the same cannot be held against the petitioners, who had preferred a separate objection and such objection is still pending consideration, since the order dated 20.3.1991 has been set aside on the restoration application filed by the contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 11. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners has substance. 12. Sri A.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents, has refuted the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners but has ultimately conceded that the order impugned be set aside and the Consolidation Officer be directed to decide the objection of the petitioners within a fixed time-frame. 13. According, I set aside the order dated 18.3.2008. The Consolidation Officer is directed to proceed in accordance with law and to decide the objections of the petitioners, as also the objection/cross-objection filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 expeditiously and in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the writ petition is allowed.