Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3205 (ALL)

Pawan Singh v. Addl. Collector (Admin. )/D. D. C.

2014-10-27

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Sri R.P. Shastri, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Pundir, who appears for respondents 2 to 5 in the writ petition, who are the contesting respondents. Since all the parties are represented and affidavits have been exchanged, the matter is being heard and decided finally at the admission stage itself. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.8.2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision Nos. 21, 22 and 23, which have been decided by a common order. 3. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he was not a party to the revision and without any notice or information, his chak was effected by the impugned order. The second submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that by the impugned order, he has been allotted a wholly udaan chak. Lastly, it has been submitted that the case of the petitioner has not been adverted to by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order. 4. Sri S.K. Pundir on the other hand submitted that although initially the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the revision, but subsequently an impleadment application was filed, whereupon notices were issued. The notice was duly served and thereupon the petitioner had put in appearance and his signature is also available on the order sheet. He, therefore, submits that full opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioner and, therefore, the order passed is not an ex parte order and cannot be interfered with on this ground. On merits, he has tried to justify the impugned order and has stated that the petitioner is not aggrieved by the modifications made in his chak. He further states that no averment pointing out any injury suffered by the petitioner has been made in the petition and, therefore, also the writ petition merits dismissal. 5. In rejoinder, Sri R.P. Shastri has referred to the averments made in paragraph 8 of the rejoinder-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the notices that are alleged to have been issued to the petitioner showed the residence of the petitioner to be in village Matauli. The petitioner has no residence in the said village. 5. In rejoinder, Sri R.P. Shastri has referred to the averments made in paragraph 8 of the rejoinder-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the notices that are alleged to have been issued to the petitioner showed the residence of the petitioner to be in village Matauli. The petitioner has no residence in the said village. It has also been averred in this paragraph of the rejoinder-affidavit that the alleged signature of the petitioner on the order-sheet is a forged one. 6. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record as also the impugned order, it is clear that insofar as the question of service of notice upon the petitioner as also the question as to whether he has appended his signature on the order sheet are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be determined in this writ petition. Under the circumstances, it is appropriate to consider the merits of the impugned order alone. 7. Since it has been submitted that the petitioner has been allotted a wholly udaan chak by means of the impugned order, I have carefully examined the C.H. Form 23 of the petitioner, which have been filed on record and such perusal reveals that the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner has substance. By the impugned order, as many as 22 plots have been allotted in the chak of the petitioner, which are comprised in his second chak. None of the plots comprising this second chak are the original holding of the petitioner. Moreover, a perusal of the impugned order also reveals that the case of the petitioner or the hardship that could be caused to him by the order has at all been adverted to by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The order has been passed simply on the reasoning that the revisionists belonged to one family and their demand for a chak at one place is justified. 8. It has been categorically stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he does not belong to the family of the contesting respondents and, therefore, the reasoning as contained in the impugned order is not applicable to him. 9. 8. It has been categorically stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he does not belong to the family of the contesting respondents and, therefore, the reasoning as contained in the impugned order is not applicable to him. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondents on a pointed query made by the Court has conceded that the petitioner does not belong to the same family as the contesting respondents, therefore, even the second submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner has force. 10. Under the circumstances, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded back for a fresh decision after hearing all concerned. 11. Accordingly, I set aside the order dated 5.8.2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and remand the matter back to him to pass a fresh order after hearing all concerned parties. Since the matter is an old one, this exercise may be completed 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. Needless to say that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 5.8.2003 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the respondent No. 1 for a decision afresh.