Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1632 (ALL)

Dau Dayal v. D. D. C.

2016-04-29

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2016
JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 1.12.2012 and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.3.2016. 3. It is contended that with regard to determination of shares a compromise arrived at between the parties and at the Assistant Consolidation Officer level the shares were determined and entered into records on 22.5.1990 and the parties were settled on their shares. 4. It appears that one of the parties then filed an appeal on 20.12.2004 along with Section 5 application. The petitioners moved objection that the appeal is time barred and not maintainable and Section 5 application should be considered first before the proceeding to decide the appeal. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation by the order impugned dated 1.12.2012 held that Section 5 application as well as the appeal shall be decided together and fixed a date for considering the same. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed a revision and the revision has now been dismissed holding that the order is interlocutory in nature and, therefore, revision is not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Bhagwat and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others reported in 1990 RD 162 wherein this Court categorically held that unless Section 5 application is decided, the appeal is not maintainable and directed that first Section 5 application should be decided and if the same is allowed then only the appeal can be heard. 6. Similar dispute is involved in the present case also. As such, the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed with the direction to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to consider Section 5 application first and in case the same is allowed then only the appeal be heard and decided in accordance with law. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed.