Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3800 (ALL)

Abhimanyu Singh v. State of U. P.

2014-12-19

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Manu Khare, for the petitioners; Sri DD Chauhan, who appears for the Gaon Sabha; Sri Shivam Yadav, appearing for respondent No. 4-A, Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA and also Sri Sanjai Goswami, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The writ petition arises out of an objection under section 9A(2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act filed by the petitioners. This objection was decided by the Consolidation Officer, Dadri (for short, the CO) on 1.3.2004 whereby the petitioners were held to be sirdars of the plots in question. A restoration application was filed on the same day. On the same day itself, another application was filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (for short, the SOC), Gautam Budh Nagar. The SOC passed the order to the effect that the CO, namely, Rajendra Singh Chauhan, who had passed the order was not available and, therefore, transferred the matter to another CO. The transferee Court on the same day allowed the restoration application without any notice or information to the petitioners. 2. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners preferred a writ petition, along with a restoration application. This petition was disposed by the order dated 30.4.2004 with the observation that the petitioners may file a restoration application before the Dy. Director of Consolidation and whereupon the DDC was directed to transfer the restoration application to some other CO. 3. In pursuance to the directions of this Court, the petitioners are said to have filed a restoration application, which was transferred to the Court of the CO, Modi Nagar. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that on the date of the order transferring the case to CO., Modi Nagar, the notification, creating Gautam Budh Nagar, stood stayed and, therefore, both the CO, Dadri and the CO, Modi Nagar, were within the jurisdiction of the DDC, Ghaziabad. It is further the case of the petitioners that this interim order, staying the notification creating the district of Gautam Budh Nagar, was vacated in the year 2004. 4. The CO, Modi Nagar, to which Court the restoration application had been transferred, allowed the same by order dated 20.11.2006. By the same order, the restoration application filed by Bheem Singh to recall the order dated 1.3.2004 was rejected. As a consequence, the order dated 1.3.2004 stood restored. 4. The CO, Modi Nagar, to which Court the restoration application had been transferred, allowed the same by order dated 20.11.2006. By the same order, the restoration application filed by Bheem Singh to recall the order dated 1.3.2004 was rejected. As a consequence, the order dated 1.3.2004 stood restored. 5. Against the order dated 20.11.2006, passed by the CO, Modi Nagar, an appeal was filed by the State on the very same day before the SOC, Gautam Budh Nagar and an order of stay was passed thereon. 6. Aggrieved by the interim order, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition No. 70742 of 2006: Dharam Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others. In this writ petition the State is said to have filed counter affidavit annexing thereto an order dated 7.12.2006, passed by the SOC, Gautam Budh Nagar, allowing the appeal. It is again the case of the petitioners that this order allowing the appeal was passed without any notice to them. By this order the matter was remanded back to the CO, Dadri. 7. Since the appeal had been decided, though allegedly by an ex parte order, the petitioners are stated to have withdrawn the writ petition and thereafter filed a revision against the order passed by the SOC, Gautam Budh Nagar. This revision was allowed and the order dated 7.12.2006 passed by the SOC was set aside and the matter was remanded back to him, to pass fresh orders after hearing the parties and after affording them opportunity to adduce evidence. Hence this writ petition. 8. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel, has reiterated the statement made by him before the Court on 20.7.2012. This statement had been noted in the order passed on the same date. The statement was that no submissions could be made on the merits of the impugned orders and that the orders impugned were being challenged only on the question of jurisdiction. 9. Sri P.N. Saxena states that the only controversy, which requires decision in the instant case is: as to whether the SOC, Gautam Budh Nagar, and the DDC, Gautam Budh Nagar, had any jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, etc. especially when the order was passed by the CO, Modi Nagar, which Court fell within the jurisdiction of the DDC, Ghaziabad. 10. Sri P.N. Saxena states that the only controversy, which requires decision in the instant case is: as to whether the SOC, Gautam Budh Nagar, and the DDC, Gautam Budh Nagar, had any jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, etc. especially when the order was passed by the CO, Modi Nagar, which Court fell within the jurisdiction of the DDC, Ghaziabad. 10. It is, therefore, clear that the dispute in the writ petition is as to whether an order passed by the CO, Modi Nagar, falling within the jurisdiction of the DDC, Ghaziabad, could be challenged before the SOC, Gautam Budh Nagar, which Court falls within the jurisdiction of the DDC, Gautam Budh Nagar. 11. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the matter having been decided by the CO, Modi Nagar, the appeal and the consequential revisions could have been entertained by the SOC and the DDC, Ghaziabad, and not by the SOC, Gautam Budh Nagar and the DDC, Gautam Budh Nagar and further that the matter could only be remanded back to a CO subordinate to the DDC, Ghaziabad. 12. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has relied upon the judgment Parashu Ram v. DDC, Ballia 2008 (100) RD 746. 13. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is fully supported by the case-law cited by him, wherein it has been held that if a case is transferred outside the district from where it arises, the hierarchy of Courts in the transferee district will have jurisdiction as regards the appeals and revisions against such order. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court in 2008 (100) RD 746 (supra) it is the SOC and the DDC, Ghaziabad, who alone would have jurisdiction in the matter since the objection had been decided by the CO, Modi Nagar, therefore, that the SOC, Gautam Budh Nagar, could not have entertained the appeal. 14. Upon consideration of the submissions made and upon a perusal of the record, both the orders impugned are found to be without jurisdiction in view of the case-law cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, i.e. Parashu Ram v. DDC, Ballia 2008 (100) RD 746, which, in turn, is based upon the judgment reported in Darbari Lal v. DDC, Jalaun and others 1989 RD 304. 15. 15. However, in view of the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 25566 of 2012: Sahab Singh and others v. DDC and others, wherein the same impugned orders had been challenged, and which stand affirmed by such dismissal, the same orders cannot be quashed in the instant writ petition as the same would result in conflicting judgments. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.