Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3562 (ALL)

Rajaram v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Jaunpur

2014-12-01

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Shri K.C. Kishan Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.L. Verma who has filed caveat on behalf of the respondent No: 3. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 7.8.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby a recall application of the respondents has been allowed, the order passed in a reference under section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been recalled and the reference itself has been rejected, holding it to be forged and fabricated. 2. Facts of the case, briefly stated are that a reference prepared at the instance of the petitioners' father is said to have been accepted on 15.12.1988 and the same was allegedly given effect to in the revenue records as also on the spot. 3. On 24.6.1992, a restoration application was filed by the respondents against the order dated 15.12.1988 on the ground that the reference had been accepted ex-parte. It was further taken as a ground that a revision No. 423/288 filed by the petitioners' father had been dismissed on 11.6.1986. 4. The restoration application of the respondents was allowed on 13.6.1994. 5. On 23.5.1995, the petitioners filed a restoration application alleging that the order dated 13.6.1994 was ex-parte against them. During the pendency of this restoration application, the contesting respondents filed an application on 11.11.2002, praying that the original record of the reference be traced. It is the case of the petitioners that they filed an objection to this application wherein it was alleged that the original file had been misplaced on account of the collusion between the consolidation authorities and the respondents. 6. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 1.10.2003 allowed the restoration application filed by the petitioners and fixed 20.10.2003 for final disposal of the restoration application filed by the respondents. It is this application dated 24.6.1992 which has been allowed by the impugned order, the order dated 15.12.1988 has been set aside and the reference itself held to be forged. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the original record of the reference was not traceable. It is this application dated 24.6.1992 which has been allowed by the impugned order, the order dated 15.12.1988 has been set aside and the reference itself held to be forged. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the original record of the reference was not traceable. The only contention of the respondents in their restoration application was that the order of 1988 had been passed ex parte against them but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly and illegally rejected the reference itself, holding it to be a forged reference. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that the Court below has carved out a new case, never pleaded by the respondents. He has further submitted that the reference should have been decided after the original record of the reference proceedings had been traced out. He has vehemently urged that this record had been misplaced by the consolidation authorities in collusion with the contesting respondents. 8. In this connection, it would be relevant to note that the original record of the reference alleged to have been decided in 1988 is not traceable. Only the amal daramad of the order passed therein as made in the revenue records, is available. This incorporation is of an order passed in Reference No: 297. 9. The finding recorded in the impugned order is that this reference no: 297 did not pertain to the parties or to chak holder No: 169 i.e. the respondents. This reference no: 297, in fact, pertained to Chotey Lal and Indradeo. 10. In view of the finding returned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, a pointed enquiry was made to learned Counsel for the petitioner as to which order was sought to be implemented by means of the reference wherein the order dated 15.12.1988 was passed. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was not able to point out as to which order was sought to be implemented by the reference aforesaid. His only reply is that the petitioners are rustic villagers and they are not in a position to specify as to which order was sought to be implemented on account of the non-availability of the original record. His only reply is that the petitioners are rustic villagers and they are not in a position to specify as to which order was sought to be implemented on account of the non-availability of the original record. He has again tried to emphasize that till such time the original record is not traced out, it is not possible for the petitioners to spell out any details in this regard as they are illiterate persons. He is further submitted that there is no record available which would show that any revision filed by the petitioners' father had been dismissed on 11.6.1986. 12. In rebuttal Learned Counsel for the caveator has supported the impugned order. He has stated that the chak allotment proceedings attained finality when the revision filed by the petitioners' father was dismissed on 11.6.1986. This was revision No. 423/288 and by its dismissal the chaks of the parties as existing at the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation stage were maintained. 13. Under the circumstances, there was no occasion for making any modification in the chaks of the parties, by means of the reference. He has further relied upon the findings returned in the impugned order, which are to the effect that Reference No: 297, which is said to have been accepted on 15.12.1988 and which order was sought to be recalled on the application filed by his clients, did not pertain to the chak of the parties. It pertained to the chaks of third parties, namely Indradeo and Chotey Lal and under the circumstances, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly recalled the order dated 15.12.1988 on the ground that the reference itself was forged and fabricated. 14. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, and upon the perusal of the record, it may be recorded that the petitioner has not been able to specify as to what order was sought to be implemented by the reference. There is also no adequate rebuttal of the facts recorded in the impugned order that a revision filed by the petitioners' father had been dismissed in 1986. The only contention in this regard is that no such record is available. 15. There is also no adequate rebuttal of the facts recorded in the impugned order that a revision filed by the petitioners' father had been dismissed in 1986. The only contention in this regard is that no such record is available. 15. Under the circumstances, even if it is assumed that no revision was filed by the petitioners' father and that no such revision was ever dismissed, yet the fact remains that the reference is alleged to have been prepared at the instance of the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest. It is, therefore, for the petitioners to explain as to what necessitated preparation of the reference itself and as to what order was sought to be implemented thereby. 16. Rather than explain this position, the only contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that they are rustic villagers and illiterate persons and, therefore, not in a position to clarify as to what order was sought to be implemented by means of the reference in question. A feeble attempt is being made to wriggle out of the situation on the untenable excuse that it is not possible to specify or clarify the situation till such time the original record of the reference is traced. 17. In my considered opinion, such an explanation is not worthy of credence. Even in the absence of the original record, it is not open for the petitioners to plead ignorance as to what order was sought to be implemented by means of the reference in question. There is also a total lack of any cogent documentary evidence available on record to rebut the finding recorded in the impugned order that reference no: 297, which finds a mention in the amal daramad of the order dated 15.12.1988, whereby the chaks of the parties are alleged to have been modified, did not pertain to the parties and that it, in fact, pertains to third parties. The petitioners, therefore, have failed to make out any case for interference. 18. In view of the reasons given above and more specifically in view of the petitioners being unable to state anything as to what order was sought to be implemented by means of the reference prepared at their instance, I see no fault, illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the reference in question is forged and fabricated. The insistence of Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners are rustic villagers and illiterate persons and, therefore, not in a position to disclose as to what order in their favour was required to be implemented by means of the reference, the writ petition appears to be nothing but sheer abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of  Rs. 10,000/-.