Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 490 (ALL)

Kamla Devi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation

2014-02-12

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 8.7.2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby he has set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and remanded the matter for decision afresh after affording opportunity to-the parties to adduce evidence and after hearing them. The dispute in this writ petition relates to Khata No. 8 consisting of Plot Nos. 107, 622, 33, 44, 45 of Village Simari, Pargana Pratapganj (Pratapgarh wrongly transcribed in place of Pratapganj). An objection was filed by the contesting respondents regarding the aforesaid plots claiming on the basis of a registered sale deed alleged to have been executed by Kamla Devi on 5.2.1993 and 9.2.1993. The name of predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondent was ordered to be recorded over the land in dispute on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deed. This order was subsequently recalled on a restoration application filed by the petitioner. Thereafter the Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, rejected the objection filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents, on the finding that the photograph affixed on the sale-deed and the photograph on the voter I.D. Card differed substantially. The Consolidation Officer while dismissing the objection also relied upon some reports in ceiling proceedings which to my mind are wholly irrelevant. 2. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer was affirmed in appeal by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by his order dated 87.2010. By this order another appeal connected to the main appeal was also dismissed. This connected appeal was filed against the order passed in proceedings under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules seeking to implement the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in favour of the petitioner. 3. The aforesaid two orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation were challenged by means of Revision No. 728, Ram Gopal and others v. Kamla Devi. 4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order impugned has set aside, the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation and remanded the matter for a fresh decision as noted above. 5. I have heard Shri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajeet Kumar appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and have perused the record. 6. 5. I have heard Shri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajeet Kumar appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and have perused the record. 6. A perusal of the grounds taken in the writ petition and the submissions made shows that the primary thrust of the arguments on behalf of the petitioner is that the contesting respondents have resorted to fraud and therefore the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation have rightly rejected their claim. 7. I am of the opinion that this argument is not sufficient for setting aside an order of remand. However, in view of the fact that the Deputy Director of Consolidation is the last Court of fact, in my opinion, nothing prevented him from deciding the controversy himself. There appears to be no justification for remanding the matter back to the Consolidation Officer. 8. The respondents, in any case are entitled to be heard in the revision itself which is a statutory remedy available to them. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him and has remanded the matter when he was fully competent to decide the same himself. 9. Although there appears to be no other infirmity in the order for remand, yet since the matter is undecided finally after almost two decades now, permitting it to be remanded to the Consolidation Officer will unnecessarily delay, the decision of the dispute between the parties. 10. Under the circumstances, it is thought fit to modify the order impugned in the writ petition, after setting aside the direction whereby the matter has been remanded to the Consolidation Officer. 11. At this juncture, it has been stated that the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has already executed sale-deeds in favour of the third parties, who are interfering with their possession on the spot. 12. Accordingly, the Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the matter himself after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and after hearing them. For their purpose the parties shall appear before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 20th February, 2014. They will thereafter have fifteen days time for filing their evidence. After the expiry of the said period of fifteen days, the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall endeavour to decide the revision within a period of one month thereafter. For their purpose the parties shall appear before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 20th February, 2014. They will thereafter have fifteen days time for filing their evidence. After the expiry of the said period of fifteen days, the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall endeavour to decide the revision within a period of one month thereafter. In case, no evidence is filed by either of the parties or any of them within the stipulated period they will not be permitted to adduce any evidence and the matter shall be decided on the basis of the evidence already on record. 13. Under the circumstances till 20th February, 2014, the date fixed for the parties to appear before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, they shall maintain status quo as regards possession and nature of land in dispute and thereafter any interim protection, if required, may granted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself on an appropriate application being made before him in this regard. With the aforesaid directions and subject to them, this writ petition is allowed in part. There will no order as to costs.