WARKATULLAH BAKSH v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, PILIBHIT
2015-10-01
RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)
body2015
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri J.J. Munir, for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Chandra, for respondent-2. Sri Pradep Chandra does not propose to file any Counter-affidavit. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is decided finally. 2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10.3.2010 and 23.7.2015, passed in chak allotment proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of allotment of chak on plots 43/1 and 60 of village Pakadiya Naugawan, pargana and district Pilibhit, which were original holdings of Sharifullah, father of the petitioner. Assistant Consolidation Officer allotted these plots in the chak of respondent-2. Sharifullah filed an objection (registered as case No. 75 of 2006-07) under Section 9-B of the Act, for deleting its valuation, on the ground that these plots were grove land. Consolidation Officer by order dated 28.1.2008 dismissed the objection. Sharifullah filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 134) from the aforesaid order. The Appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 25.7.2008 allowed the appeal and deleted valuation of plots 43/1 (area 0.170 hectare) and 60/1 (area 0.324 hectare). 4. Mohd. Raza Khan (respondent-2) filed a revision (registered as revision No. 169/484/96 of 2010) from the aforesaid order. In the meantime Sharifullah died on 8.9.2009. Deputy Director of Consolidation, without substituting the heirs of Sharifullah and without issuing any notice to them allowed the revision by order dated 10.3.2010 and set aside the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation. 5. The petitioner filed an application for recall of the order dated 10.3.2010, alongwith delay condonation application. Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 23.7.2015 condoned the delay in filing the restoration application but held that order dated 10.3.2010 was passed after spot inspection and hearing the parties on merit. The heir of Sharifullah did not file any evidence to prove that Sharifullah was dead on the date of order although burden of proof was upon him. As such the order passed on merit is not liable to be recalled. On these findings, the restoration application was dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6.
The heir of Sharifullah did not file any evidence to prove that Sharifullah was dead on the date of order although burden of proof was upon him. As such the order passed on merit is not liable to be recalled. On these findings, the restoration application was dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sharifullah was sole respondent in the revision, who died on 8.9.2009 while revision was decided on 10.3.2010, without substituting the heir of Sharifullah and giving any notice to him. The order dated 10.3.2010 was against a dead person and is a nullity and was liable to be set aside but Deputy Director of Consolidation as illegally dismissed the restoration application. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The petitioner has filed photostat copy of certified copy of Death Certificate of Sharifullah, in which, his date of death is mentioned as 8.9.2009. Thus the order dated 10.3.2010 was against a dead person. It is not denied that after death of Sharifullah, the petitioner was not substituted as his heir or given any notice before passing the order dated 10.3.2010. Supreme Court in Amba Bai v. Gopal, AIR 2001 SC 2003 and T Gnanavel v. T.S. Kanagaraj, AIR 2009 SC 2367 , held that order against dead person is a nullity. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10.3.2010 and 23.7.2015 are set aside. The matter is remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation, who shall substitute the petitioner in place of Sharifullah and after giving opportunity of hearing decide the revision afresh.