Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3994 (ALL)

DHARAM DEI v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

2015-12-16

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.P. Singh, Senior Advocate for the respondent. 2. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules and seeks quashing of the judgments and orders passed by the respondents 1, 2 and 3 dated 6.4.2011, 31.1.2011 and 28.7.2009 respectively. 3. In proceeding under Rule 109-A by an order dated 28.7.2009, the name of the petitioner was ordered to be expunged in pursuance of an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 31.12.1986. 4. Against this order, the petitioner filed a recall application on 27.7.2009 on the ground that the order was passed ex parte. 5. The Consolidation Officer on 27.10.2009, allowed the restoration application. 6. Tribhuwan Nath, respondent, filed an appeal against the order dated 27.10.2009. He also filed a transfer application for transfer of the case from the Court of the Consolidation Officer, Meja. 7. The appeal filed by the Tribhuwan Nath, was dismissed as not maintainable by the order dated 31.11.2009. The transfer application also came to be rejected. 8. Against the order rejecting the transfer application, a revision was filed which was allowed and the matter was remanded back. 9. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, upon remand, by his order dated 11.6.2010, allowed the transfer application and the matter was transferred to the Court of the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Allahabad. 10. The Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Allahabad, rejected the recall application filed by the petitioner as not maintainable. 11. Against this order Smt. Dharamdevi, petitioner, filed an appeal wherein an interim order was granted on 7.2.2011. The order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 7.2.2011, granting an interim order, was challenged by means of a revision. 12. The Deputy Director of Consolidation on 6.4.2011, admitted the revision and stayed the operation of the interim order granted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was impugned in the revision, and hence this writ petition challenging the order dated 6.4.2011 as also the other orders enumerated above. 13. This writ petition was heard alongwith the writ petition No. 551 of 1987 which was directed against the order dated 31.12.1986, sought to be implemented by the proceedings under Rule 109-A, where from this writ petition arises. 14. 13. This writ petition was heard alongwith the writ petition No. 551 of 1987 which was directed against the order dated 31.12.1986, sought to be implemented by the proceedings under Rule 109-A, where from this writ petition arises. 14. The writ petition No. 551 of 1987, has been allowed by me by a separate order passed today, the order dated 31.12.1986 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for a fresh decision. 15. It is, therefore, clear that the order dated 31.12.1986, implementation whereof was sought by the respondents by means of the proceedings under Rule 109-A, has been set aside. 16. In such view of the matter, there is no question of implementation of the order dated 31.12.1986. 17. The orders impugned in the writ petition are, therefore, liable to be set aside and the revenue records are to be restored as they stood on the date the order dated 31.12.1986 was passed. 18. Once the Deputy Director of Consolidation decides the matter remanded to him the order passed shall have to be implemented on the revenue records and for the same, the parties may draw fresh proceedings under Rule 109-A. 19. Accordingly and for the reason given above, I allow this writ petition and set aside the orders impugned dated 6.4.2011, 31.1.2011 and 28.7.2009. ———————