Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1297 (ALL)

Jai Prakash v. D. D. C.

2016-04-07

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard Sri H.N. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners in support of this review application. 2. It has been submitted that an appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Since the appeal had been allowed, the appellant could not have filed a revision against the same and therefore the revision which has been allowed by the order impugned in the writ petition was not maintainable. 3. The second submission is against one appellate order, two revisions were filed. The second revision was not maintainable and therefore also the order impugned in the writ petition, allowing this revision, was vitiated. 4. The third submission is that the revision was highly belated by several years and yet the same was allowed without condoning the delay. 5. The fourth submission is that relief has been granted and the respondent has been allotted a chak on plot no.666 which plot had never been claimed by him either before the Consolidation Officer or before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The relief in this regard could not have been claimed for the first time at the revisional stage. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is therefore, vitiated. 6. The next point submitted is that another claim raised by Dhanpat, namely respondent no.4 regarding plot no.666 was still pending consideration in writ petition no.49214 of 2005, before this Court. 7. The last submission is that the judgment in the writ petition was reserved on 22.05.2014 and the same was delivered on 11.11.2014 after six months, as a result whereof various points argued were not considered therein. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners and have perused the record especially the order under review. 9. The first contention is that the revision could not have been allowed, since it raised a claim to plot no.666 which has not been raised before the subordinate courts is wholly without substance. This aspect has been elaborately dealt with in the order under review. It is established on the record that plot no.666 was earlier recorded as 'Matrook' and it was ordered to be recorded in the name of the parties vide order dated 07.11.2003. Claim to this plot could not have been made earlier. This was precisely what has been held by me in the judgement under review. It is established on the record that plot no.666 was earlier recorded as 'Matrook' and it was ordered to be recorded in the name of the parties vide order dated 07.11.2003. Claim to this plot could not have been made earlier. This was precisely what has been held by me in the judgement under review. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants-petitioner is therefore misconceived and the judgment in this regard is not liable to be reviewed. 10. In so far as the question of the revision being belated and the delay not having been condoned is concerned the point has been raised, only to be rejected. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while allowing the revision has specifically condoned the delay, accepting the explanation given in the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act as also the affidavit filed in support thereof. This specific finding is to be found in the page 83 of the paper book. Besides, it is settled law that the question of condonation of delay is within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court considering the application for condonation of delay and once such discretion has been exercised in favour of a party, the superior courts should not lightly interfere in such a discretionary order. 11. In so far as the question of two revisions having been filed and therefore the second revision being barred by Section 21(2) is concerned, even this point has been elaborately dealt with, in the impugned order. Both the revisions were consolidated and were heard and decided together. The order impugned in the writ petition clearly reveals that this order, consolidating the two revisions, was passed on an earlier date but was never challenged. Besides, the same in my considered opinion, is a technical objection. Even if, two revisions had been decided together, the same has not been resulted in any serious prejudice to the petitioner which would warrant interference with the revisional order. Therefore, even this submission of learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners is repelled. 12. In so far as the question that the appeal having been allowed, the appellant could not have filed a revision thereafter, is also a question to be decided in the facts and circumstances of this case. No straight jacket formula can be applied in this regard. Therefore, even this submission of learned counsel for the applicants-petitioners is repelled. 12. In so far as the question that the appeal having been allowed, the appellant could not have filed a revision thereafter, is also a question to be decided in the facts and circumstances of this case. No straight jacket formula can be applied in this regard. It is always possible that in spite of relief having been granted at the appellate stage, a party is still not satisfied and therefore files a revision. It is for the revisional Court to examine is as to whether or not any further relief is liable to be granted. In the instant case, the revisional Court after considering the submissions, and for cogent reasons, granted relief to the opposite party which was in consonance with the various Government Orders, which provide that all the co-owners of valuable roadside land should be allotted chak thereon, commensurate to their share. This is precisely what has been done by the order impugned in the writ petition. 13. In so far as, the pendency of writ petition No.49214 of 2005 is concerned, the same appears to have been filed by one Dhanpat. Dhanpat appears to be a separate tenure holder and his claim shall be considered when the writ petition is decided. Pendency of the claim of another party, even if to the same plot, namely plot no.666, will not preclude the Courts from adverting upon a distinct and separate claim as regards the same plot. This argument therefore, appears to be an argument of desparation, bereft of any substance. 14. As far as the last submission that the judgment in the writ petition was delivered almost six months after it having been reserved, the same is a defect, but such defect stands remedied, inasmuch as, all the submissions that have been raised by means of this review application have been duly considered herein-above. 15. Upon such consideration, this Court finds that the submissions that have been raised by learned counsel for the applicants are all without substance and none of them are such that would justify review of the order passed by this Court. Even otherwise, consideration of all the submissions raised, while deciding the review application cures the defect, if any in the judgment have been rendered almost six months after it was reserved. 16. Even otherwise, consideration of all the submissions raised, while deciding the review application cures the defect, if any in the judgment have been rendered almost six months after it was reserved. 16. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that no good ground for review of the judgment and order dated 11.11.2014 has been made out . 17. The review application is accordingly, dismissed.