Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3844 (ALL)

Sahab Dei v. Consolidation officer, Balrampur

2016-11-29

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

body2016
JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent. 2. This petition seeks to challenge two orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, Balrampur, one passed on 20.11.2013 and other passed on 18.08.2015. 3. It appears that during consolidation proceedings a dispute relating to title had cropped up between the predecessors in interest of the petitioners and the predecessors in interest of the respondent Nos.2 to 4. The matter ultimately was carried up to this Court and predecessors in interest of the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 1655 of 1972,Swami Dayal etc. Vs. Smt. Sukh Mata etc. The said writ petition was finally decided on 02.03.1979. This court while passing the said judgment and order on 02.03.1979 quashed the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively and remitted the matter back to the Consolidation Officer with the direction that he shall restore the objections preferred by the petitioners therein (predecessors in interest of the respondents) and will proceed to dispose of the same on merits as expeditiously as possible. 4. It appears that the said order dated 02.03.1979 was never brought to the notice of the Consolidation Officer either by the predecessors in interest of the respondents or even by the predecessors in interest of the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the predecessors in interest of the petitioners were parties to the afore-noted Writ Petition No. 1655 of 1972 and hence, it was a duty cast equally on the predecessors in interest of the petitioners to have apprised the Consolidation Officer of the order dated 02.03.1979, passed by this Court. In the meantime, the predecessors in interest of the petitioners as well as those of the respondents expired and now respondents have moved the Consolidation Officer informing him of the order dated 02.03.1979, passed by this Court with the prayer to restore the objections and decide the same on merits as was directed by this Court by means of judgment and order dated 02.03.1979. 5. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order dated 02.03.1979, passed by this court was not presented nor was brought to the notice of the Consolidation Officer by the predecessors in interest of the respondents; rather it has now been sought by the respondents to initiate the proceedings on the basis of the said judgment and order passed by this court after a lapse of about 35 years. He has also stated that during life time of the predecessors in interest of the petitioners as well as those of the respondents, the matter was amicably settled and hence, there is no occasion for the Consolidation Officer to entertain the application moved by the respondents to decide the objections in terms of the judgment and order dated 02.03.1979, passed by this Court. In this view, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that entire proceedings initiated by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of judgment and order dated 02.03.1979, passed by this Court are illegal and hence, the same deserve to be quashed. 6. The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioners has been considered only to be rejected for the reason that even after the notification declaring closure of the consolidation operations under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, any order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction in cases of writs filed under the provisions of the Constitution of India, or in cases of proceedings under the said Act on the date of issue of the notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Act shall be given effect to by such authorities, as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the aforesaid Act unambiguously gives a mandate that in certain situations the consolidation operations shall be deemed to have not been closed and the situations envisaged in the said provisions inter alia include where an order has been passed in a writ petition filed under the provisions of the Constitution of India. Thus, even after publication of the notification under Section 52 by operation of Sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the Act, the proceedings would not be deemed to have been closed in case on the date of notification sub-section (1) of Section 52 writ proceeding is pending. Thus, even after publication of the notification under Section 52 by operation of Sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the Act, the proceedings would not be deemed to have been closed in case on the date of notification sub-section (1) of Section 52 writ proceeding is pending. Sub-section (2) of Section (52) of the Act also mandates that the order passed by the writ court or any other court of competent jurisdiction are to be given effect to. 7. Thus, in my considered opinion, in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the Act, the judgment and order passed by this Court on 02.03.1979 in Writ Petition No. 1655 of 1972 has to be given effect to. 8. I have yet another reason to observe as above and the reason is that the predecessors in interest of the petitioners were also party to the writ petition and duty to apprise the Consolidation Officer of the order dated 02.03.1979, passed by this Court lies equally on the shoulders of the predecessors in interest of the petitioners as also on the predecessors in interest of the respondents. 9. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the proceedings initiated by the Consolidation Officer pursuant to and in compliance of the order dated 02.03.1979, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1655 of 1972. The contentions raised, thus, by the learned counsel for the petitioners are rejected and the writ petition is dismissed. 10. At this juncture, I is added that the Consolidation Officer while deciding the proceedings reopened by him under judgment and order dated 02.03.1979, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1655 of 1972 has to confine his probe and adjudication to the new objections which were filed by the predecessors in interest of the respondents as mentioned in the judgment and order dated 02.03.1979, passed by this court The Consolidation Officer will not in any manner travel beyond the terms of the judgment and order dated 02.03.1979 i.e. to say it will not be permissible for the Consolidation Officer to adjudicate upon any other grounds or objections other than the grounds and objections raised by the predecessors in interest of the respondents. 11. There will be no order as to costs.