Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 787 (ALL)

Katlu v. D. D. C.

2014-03-05

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, for the petitioner and Sri Dinesh Pathak for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 24.9.1997, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 18.5.2013 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 29.1.2014 by which the recall application filed by Bekaru (now represented by respondents - 4 and 5) was allowed and the appeal as well as the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. The dispute relates to correction of area of plot no. 186 of village Ghotwa, post Katya, tehsil and distt. Basti. It is alleged that during survey and partal, the area of plot no. 186 was found as 0.595 hectare. The petitioner filed an objection for correction of the area, as in the last settlement, its area was recorded as 0.0664 hectare. Application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 4.4.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for recall of the order dated 4.4.1997 which has been allegedly allowed by the order dated 24.9.1997 and the area of plot no. 186 was directed to be recorded 0.0664 hectare. Against the order dated 24.9.1997 Bekaru filed a recall application on 10.7.2012. In the recall application it has been stated that the Presiding Officer (Consolidation Officer) died after passing of the order dated 4.4.1997 and before passing the order dated 24.9.1997, and the order dated 24.9.1997 is forged and fabricated order. On its basis the petitioner has cultivated the land of chak road which is useful for him and go up to his house. The recall application was heard by Consolidation Officer, the Consolidation Officer by order dated 18.5.2013 found that after passing the order dated 4.4.1997, no fresh report regarding survey of plot no. 186 has been obtained and without obtaining any fresh report the order dated 24.9.1997 was passed which is illegal. As due to the enhancement of area of plot no. 186 the applicant, Bekaru was affected as such he is aggrieved persons, on this finding, the recall application is allowed and proceeding for fresh survey as well as measurement of plot no. 186 was directed to be taken. The petitioner filed an appeal from the aforesaid order. As due to the enhancement of area of plot no. 186 the applicant, Bekaru was affected as such he is aggrieved persons, on this finding, the recall application is allowed and proceeding for fresh survey as well as measurement of plot no. 186 was directed to be taken. The petitioner filed an appeal from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer, Consolidation who by order dated 27.12.2013 found that as Bekaru was not heard at the time of passing the initial order and by enhancement of its area his right is also affected. As such, the recall application was maintainable and petitioner has opportunity of hearing before the Consolidation Officer as such he refused to exercise his appellate jurisdiction and held that the appeal being against the order, allowing the recall application, as such it is an interlocutory order and the appeal is not maintainable. The petitioner filed a revision from the aforesaid order which has also been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 29.1.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that there was inordinate delay in filing the recall application and delay was not liable to be condoned. Bekaru has nothing to do with enhancement of area of original plot no. 186 of the petitioner and he was not aggrieved at all and the recall application filed by him was not maintainable and ought to have been rejected. All these points were specifically raised but neither the appellate authority nor the revisional authority has interfered in the matter. 5. In reply to the aforesaid arguments the counsel for the respondents submits that the recall application was allowed on the ground that after passing the order dated 4.4.1997 no fresh survey and measurement was done as such there was no basis for passing a fresh order dated 24.9.1997, enhancing it area therefore inherent illegality has been found in the order and the Consolidation Officer was satisfied with the illegality and recalled the order. The appellate court also recorded its finding that Bekaru is an affected person as by enhancement of the area, the persons whose plots are existing adjacent to plot no. 186 will be affected. In such circumstances, petitioner has opportunity of being heard and satisfying about the correctness of the area, no interference is required by this Court. 6. The appellate court also recorded its finding that Bekaru is an affected person as by enhancement of the area, the persons whose plots are existing adjacent to plot no. 186 will be affected. In such circumstances, petitioner has opportunity of being heard and satisfying about the correctness of the area, no interference is required by this Court. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. The allegations that order dated 24.9.1997 was fabricated after death of the Presiding Officer, is a serious allegation and similarly there is a serious allegation that in order to cover the area, the petitioner has encroached upon the chak road land and cultivated it. Although there is no specific findings in respect of the aforesaid allegation but no useful purpose will be served for remanding the case for recording a finding on the aforesaid allegations. It is not denied that objection of the petitioner was dismissed on 4.4.1997. By the order dated 24.9.1997, earlier order dated 4.4.1997 was recalled and at the same time only on the basis of map, area of plot no. 186 was enhanced. Thus there was no fresh survey and measurement on the spot. At the time of survey, area of plot no. 186 was found to be short as such without fresh survey its area could not be enhanced. The Consolidation Officer recorded a finding that without obtaining a fresh survey report and measurement, the order dated 24.9.1997 could not have been passed. In view of the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer, no interference is required by this Court. 7. The writ petition is dismissed.