Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1815 (ALL)

Bandhu v. D. D. C.

2016-05-11

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2016
JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya,J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come to this Court challenging the order of the Consolidation Officer, Azamgarh dated 19.1.2004 as well as order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh in revision filed under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 dated 23.2.2016. 2. The allegation of the petitioner is that petitioner had filed objection under Section 9-A(2) of the Act with regard to the petitioner's share in the property in question. The petitioner is grandson of Harhangi and son of Sahdev. Sahdev other brother was Sahangi. Sahangi had four sons. Petitioner's father Sahdev died and, therefore, for determination of share the petitioner filed an application under Section 9-A(2) of the Act claiming the share in the property to the extent of half to Sahangi and half to the petitioner. Notices were issued. The respondents appeared before the authority concerned, but on one date they did not appear and, therefore, an order was passed on 15.10.2003 closing the opportunity to lead evidence. This order was recalled upon an application moved by the respondents. Then again they did not appear and, therefore, again an order dated 10.12.2003 was passed closing the opportunity to lead evidence. When the respondents' opportunity to lead evidence was closed, the Consolidation Officer proceeded with the claim of the petitioner and decide the share to the extent of 1/2 between the petitioner and Sahangi by order dated 27.12.2003. This order was sought to be recalled by the respondents by moving an application for recalling the order dated 10.12.2003 and 27.12.2003. The said application was allowed and the matter was restored by order dated 19.1.2004, which is impugned in this writ petition. The allegation of the petitioner is that for recall of two orders only one application was moved which is against the procedure prescribed and secondly, the provisions of Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are applicable which provides the procedure and reasons for recall of an order. 3. The allegation of the petitioner is that for recall of two orders only one application was moved which is against the procedure prescribed and secondly, the provisions of Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are applicable which provides the procedure and reasons for recall of an order. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner none of the reasons have been recorded or followed, but the order has been recalled after such a delay, affecting the right of the petitioner and, therefore, petitioner filed a revision directly before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, that revision has also been dismissed on the ground that it is only an interlocutory order and therefore, the revision is not maintainable. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. It is true that twice opportunity of lead evidence was closed and thereafter the impugned order was passed on account of default of the respondents. When the question for consideration is that the title has to be decided with regard to the suit property, which is a valuable civil right and only on account of default or technicality such right cannot be allowed to be waved off which may have far reaching consequences for the parties. The parties will have an opportunity to put forward their respective claims and thereafter the right will be determined with regard to suit property in accordance with law. As such, at this stage I am not inclined to interfere with the proceedings. 6. However, a direction is required to be given to the Consolidation Officer to conclude the proceeding without unnecessary delay. It is also noteworthy that the proceedings have lingered on for a very long time, probably on account of the respondents. Therefore, it would be appropriate that the respondents co-operate and close their evidence within a period of one month at the most from the date of production of certified copy of this order and thereafter orders be passed at the earliest, in accordance with law. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed.