Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2572 (ALL)

Ram Lal v. Dy. Director, Consolidation, M. Nagar

2015-08-24

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2015
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Prakash Chandra Shukla, holding brief of Sri N.C. Rajvanshi for the petitioners. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order of DDC dated 19.3.1997, by which the revision filed by Jagram was dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Jagram filed a revision in chak allotment matter against the order of SOC dated 5.6.1987. The revision was filed on 8.8.1996. Jagram moved an application before DDC on 13.8.1996 that instead of transferring the revision, it will be retained by DDC and decided by him. The revision was allowed by the order dated 29.8.1996, by which Jagram was allotted chak on the land which was reserved for Gaon Sabha. On 31.8.1996, Jagram executed two sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. One sale deed is alleged to be executed for sale consideration of Rs. 3,80,000/-, out of which Rs. 3,30,000/- was paid earlier and Rs. 50,000/- was paid before the Sub Registrar. The other sale deed was executed for sale consideration of Rs. 80,000/- out of which, Rs. 70,000/- was paid earlier and Rs. 10,000/- was paid before Sub Registrar. 4. On 2.9.1996, one Vijay Pal Singh filed an application for recalling of the order dated 29.8.1996. In the recall application, Vijay Pal Singh has stated that chak of Jagram was affirmed from the order of SOC dated 5.6.1987. It was not challenged by Jagram within time. In the meantime, Jagram took earnest money from him and agreed to sell it. However, he dishonestly, in malafide manner, filed highly time barred revision on 8.8.1996 to deprive the petitioner from the land under the agreement between him and Jagram and the revision has been allowed by order dated 29.8.1996. On 4.9.1996, the District Government Counsel (Revenue) filed an application for recall of the order dated 29.8.1996, stating therein that on 20.8.1996, he was informed that as the revisions have been transferred from his Court, as such, the revision will not be heard by him. However, without hearing the arguments of State and Gaon Sabha, the revision was allowed on 29.8.1996. The land which was left for Gaon Sabha has been illegally allotted to Jagram by an ex parte order dated 29.8.1996, as such, the order is liable to be recalled. However, without hearing the arguments of State and Gaon Sabha, the revision was allowed on 29.8.1996. The land which was left for Gaon Sabha has been illegally allotted to Jagram by an ex parte order dated 29.8.1996, as such, the order is liable to be recalled. The recall applications were heard by DDC, who by order dated 10.12.1996, held that Jagram had already sold the land of his chak, as allotted to him from the stage of SOC, therefore, the land which was taken from his chak by the order dated 29.8.1996 was not available on the spot. It has further been held that by the order of District Deputy Director of Consolidation, the revision was transferred from the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation and ignoring the transfer order, the revision was allowed, as such, the order was without jurisdiction. On these findings, he recalled the order dated 29.8.1996 and restored the revision to its original number. 5. Thereafter, Jagram moved an application dated 19.3.1997 for dismissing the revision as withdrawn. The application was allowed and the revision was dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 19.3.1997. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that Jagram has already sold the land allotted to him by the order dated 29.8.1996, as such, he has no right to withdraw the revision. The petitioners were subsequent transferees and the right has been assigned to them over the land in dispute. The withdrawal application was malafide and could not be allowed, even then, it has been allowed by the DDC. The order of DDC is illegal and is liable to be set aside. The order dated 29.8.1996 was not an ex parte order, but was passed after hearing the District Government Counsel (Revenue). The DDC has no jurisdiction to recall the order dated 29.8.1996. The DDC in the order dated 10.12.1996 has illegally held that the revision was transferred from his Court to the Court of Additional District Magistrate (Executive), although, the present revision was not transferred from the Court of DDC, rather, other revisions were transferred. Thus, the order dated 10.12.1996 is based upon wrong conception of fact. 7. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. The District Government Counsel (Revenue) in his recall application dated 4.9.1996 has stated that in the revision, 20.8.1996 was the date fixed. Thus, the order dated 10.12.1996 is based upon wrong conception of fact. 7. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. The District Government Counsel (Revenue) in his recall application dated 4.9.1996 has stated that in the revision, 20.8.1996 was the date fixed. On that day, he was told by the DDC that the revision was transferred from his Court to the Court of Additional District Magistrate (Executive), as such, it would not be heard by the DDC and subsequently, the order dated 29.8.1996 was passed. The cause shown by the District Government Counsel (Revenue) in the recall application was found to be correct and the order has been recalled by the DDC. One recall application has also been filed by Vijay Pal Singh (son of Pahal Singh), in which, he has stated that Jagram had already executed an agreement to sell in his favour of his chak as allotted to him, prior to the order dated 29.8.1996. Thus, he had no right to file the revision. DDC in the order dated 10.12.1996 also found that as Jagram had already sold his land as allotted to him prior to the order dated 29.8.1996, as such, it was not possible to take possession over that land, which was taken from his chak by the order dated 29.8.1996. These were valid reasons for allowing the recall application. Sufficiency of cause for default cannot be re-examined by this Court, particularly, when there is no illegality in it. 8. So far as the contention of the petitioners that Jagram had already sold the land in dispute to the petitioners and had no right to withdraw the revision is concerned, the petitioners are merely pendenti lite transferees. In the sale deed also, a nominal amount has been paid before the Sub Registrar, in which it has been mentioned that substantial amount of Rs. 3,30,000/- in one sale deed and Rs. 70,000/- in the other sale deed, had already been paid. The order of DDC was passed on 29.8.1996 and the sale deed was executed on 31.8.1996. Thus, in the circumstances, the petitioners cannot be treated as bonafide transferees for valuable sale consideration. 3,30,000/- in one sale deed and Rs. 70,000/- in the other sale deed, had already been paid. The order of DDC was passed on 29.8.1996 and the sale deed was executed on 31.8.1996. Thus, in the circumstances, the petitioners cannot be treated as bonafide transferees for valuable sale consideration. On the other hand, from the allegation of Vijay Pal Singh, it is proved that Jagram had malafide filed the revision to deprive Vijay Pal Singh from the land, for which he had already entered into an agreement to sell with Vijay Pal Singh. Thus, in such circumstances, no right can be claimed by the petitioner over and above the right of Jagram. By the order dated 29.8.1996, the land of Gaon Sabha has been allotted to Jagram. The petitioners could not show that under the provisions of Section 19 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Jagram was entitled for allotment of Gaon Sabha land. The chak carvation proceeding has been finalized in the year 1987. The revision was filed on 8.8.1996. Now, after about 28 years, it is not proper for this Court to re-open the chak carvation matter, as in the meantime, there might have been several developments over the land during this long period. The right of the petitioners, if any, can be against Jagram and for that reason, the chak allotment proceeding cannot be re-opened. 9. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.