Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1606 (ALL)

Babu v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation Amethi

2015-06-23

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2015
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Vyas Narayan Shukla for the petitioners and Sri Raj Kumar Mishra for the contesting respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.5.2015 by which revision filed by the respondent-2 has been allowed and the interim order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 20.1.2012 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide the appeal expeditiously. 3. Babu and others, the petitioners, filed an appeal against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 12.5.2008 passed in the title proceeding under Section 9 A (2) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. They also filed another appeal under Rule 109 (3) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Rules 1954 against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 30.1.2009. Both these appeals were time barred, therefore the prayer for condonation of delay has been made. It is alleged by respondent-2 that she has filed a caveat application before the Settlement Officer Consolidation but in spite of the caveat she was not given any notice of the aforesaid appeals and on the application of the petitioners interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo has been granted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 20.1.2012. Therefore respondent-2 moved an application for vacation of the interim order dated 20.1.2012. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by the order dated 20.4.2012 held that as the parties were directed to maintain status quo as such there was no need to vacate the interim order accordingly he rejected the application of respondent-2. Respondent-2 challenged the order dated 20.4.2012 in the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 30.5.2015 and the order dated 20.1.2012 was set aside and the Settlement Officer Consolidation was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that in spite of caveat being filed by respondent-2 no notice in the appeal or in the application for interim injunction has been served upon the respondent-2 as such the order dated 20.1.2014 was liable to be recalled but the application filed by respondent-2 has been illegally rejected by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 20.4.2012. On this finding he allowed the revision and set aside the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 20.1.2012 and directed to decide the appeal expeditiously. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision for caveat under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act even then respondent-2 was heard and by the order dated 20.4.2012 it was held that the order directing the parties to maintain status quo was not liable to be recalled. The order being an interlocutory order no revision was maintainable. In any case the revision was filed against the order passed in the appeal arising under Rule 109 A of UP Consolidation of Holdings Rules. Therefore the revision was not maintainable and the order of the appellate court is final under Rule 109 (3) of the Rules and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal. 5. In reply to the aforesaid arguments the counsel for the respondent-2 states that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has illegally ignored the caveat filed by respondent-2 therefore respondent-2 was not given opportunity for opposing the stay application filed by the petitioners. In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that principles of natural justice has not been complied with and accordingly, the order dated 20.1.2012 has been set aside. Due to grant of interim order the proceeding is also lingering by the parties and in such circumstances, the appeal was directed to be decided expeditiously. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. 6. The contention in respect of caveat of respondent-2 that she was not given opportunity to oppose the stay application is concerned, the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order has neither decided the stay application nor he remanded the matter to Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide the stay application. Therefore the stay application remained undecided. He merely directed to decide the appeal expeditiously. 7. The observation of Deputy Director of Consolidation that due to grant of interim order the disposal of appeal is being delayed is neither here nor there because it is respondent-2 who has challenged the interim order dated 20.1.2012 and on rejection of her application on 20.4.2012 she herself filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is due to the act of respondent-2 hearing of the appeal has been delayed and not due to the act of the petitioners. It is due to the act of respondent-2 hearing of the appeal has been delayed and not due to the act of the petitioners. On this ground also the interim order granted in the appeal was not liable to be interfered. 8. After hearing the parties the Settlement Officer Consolidation found that the order of status quo does not cause any prejudice to any of the parties. The counsel for the respondent-2 submits that as the order of Consolidation Officer dated 12.5.2008 has already been given effect to by the order dated 30.1.2009 as such there was no occasion for Settlement Officer Consolidation to grant any interim order. In such circumstances, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly vacated the interim order. The interim order was for maintaining the status quo on the spot and the order dated 30.1.2009 will not be affected by the interim order. In such circumstances, the purpose will be served if the appeal be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. 9. The writ petition is disposed of with direction to the Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide both the appeals expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order. 10. Till disposal of the appeals or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to their possession as well as nature of the land in dispute.