Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3388 (ALL)

Ramkali v. Deputy Director Consolidation Lucknow

2015-10-29

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2015
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Mohd.Shakeel for the petitioner. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 8.1.2014 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.6.2015 passed in the title proceeding under Section U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 3. There was a dispute between the parties for inheritance of the property of Smt. Angana widow of Baiju. The petitioner claimed that at the time of death of Smt.Angana amongst brothers of Baiju only Hemraj was alive and after death of Smt. Angana share of the property of Baiju was inherited by Hemraj. The petitioner is the only daughter of Hemraj. Therefore, she was subsequent heir of Baiju also. The case was contested by other brothers' sons of Baiju. It is alleged that before the Consolidation Officer the case was listed for evidence of the parties in which evidence of opposite parties were closed. The opposite parties, therefore, filed a recall application before the Consolidation Officer, which was allowed on 10.5.2005 and 19.5.2005 was the date fixed for evidence of the opposite parties. Thereafter general adjournments were granted in the case on 14.6.2005, 9.8.2005, 27.9.2005 and on 27.9.2005 the case was adjourned for 1.11.2005. In the meantime, Consolidation Officer decided the case on merit on 29.10.2005 alleging that the hearing was concluded in the village of the parties. A perusal of the order of Consolidation Officer shows that in the village itself seven pages long judgment has been completed on the same day. The opposite parties filed an appeal against the aforesaid order. In the appeal they had raised a specific ground that although in the case 1.11.2005 was the date fixed by the Consolidation Officer for evidence of the opposite parties but before that day the case was decided on 29.10.2005 without hearing any arguments. The appellate court after hearing the parties by the impugned order dated 8.1.2014 found that the ground raised by the opposite parties in the appeal was correct and the case was decided by the Consolidation Officer in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as 1.11.2005 was the date fixed for evidence of the parties but the case was decided on 29.10.2005. On this finding he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 29.10.2005 and remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer for giving opportunity of evidence to the parties and to decide the case afresh. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order, which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 30.6.2015. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. 5. A perusal of the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation shows that a specific finding has been recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation that on the application of Sant Ram the ex parte proceeding was recalled and he was given opportunity to lead evidence by order dated 10.5.2005. Thereafter several general adjournments were granted and lastly 1.11.2005 was the date fixed for evidence but the matter has been decided by the Consolidation Officer. A perusal of Annexure-4 of the writ petition shows that the matter was heard in the village and decided there itself. Thus, finding recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation that the case was decided by the Consolidation Officer in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. This finding of fact could not be challenged by the petitioner. The matter has been remanded to the Consolidation Officer and the petitioner has an opportunity to agitate his grievance before the Consolidation Officer. No interference is required by this Court. However, the Consolidation Officer shall provide opportunity for evidence and hearing to all the parties concerned and then proceed to decide it expeditiously. 6. With the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed.