Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4032 (ALL)

Mool Chandra v. State of U. P.

2016-12-15

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. On oral prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, he is permitted to implead Om Prakash Kesari, as party respondent No. 5 to the instant writ petition. Heard counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, no notice is being issued to the newly impleaded respondent. The petitioners claim that their right, title and interest in regard to the land in dispute stood settled up to this Court by a decision dated 5 May 2005 in Writ Petition No. 9786 of 1980. Thereafter, one Seema Begam, an ex-Sabhasad, applied for recall of the orders, which were affirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9786 of 1980, upon which the Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 22 December 2011 rejecting the restoration application. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by Seema Begam, which was dismissed by order dated 6 December 2014. She carried the matter in revision and the revision was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 26 February 2015. The newly impleaded respondent also challenged the order dated 22 December 2011 as well as the order dated 6 December 2014 by filing a revision, which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 4 May 2016. Thereafter, the Consolidation Officer passed an order on 24 August 2016 for implementation of the previous orders. The sixth respondent again filed an appeal against the order dated 24 August 2016, though in the past, he had lost up to the revisional stage. The petitioners have now approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings of Appeal No. 146 of 2016 pending before the third respondent. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appeal filed by the newly impleaded respondent amounts to gross abuse of the process of law inasmuch as, the revision filed by the newly impleaded respondent has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 4 May 2016. It is further submitted that even the objections filed by Seema Begam had also been rejected and the said order was upheld uptil the stage of revision. It is not disputed before this Court that there is no stay in the appeal filed by the newly impleaded respondent. It is further submitted that even the objections filed by Seema Begam had also been rejected and the said order was upheld uptil the stage of revision. It is not disputed before this Court that there is no stay in the appeal filed by the newly impleaded respondent. The petitioners have also appeared in the appeal and are stated to be contesting the proceedings. In such view of the matter, in the opinion of the Court, interest of justice would be served in disposing of the writ petition with the following directions : - a) It shall be open to the petitioners to raise all objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal before the third respondent. The third respondent shall positively decide the appeal within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. b) In case, there is no stay in appeal, it shall be open to the petitioners to request the second respondent to implement previous orders passed during the consolidation operations. The writ petition stands disposed with the aforesaid observations/directions.