Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1102 (ALL)

Srikant v. State of U. P.

2018-05-03

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2018
JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL, J. 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 28th September, 2017 and 31st March, 2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun and the Consolidation Officer, Jalaun respectively. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that one Prag Narayan was said to be owner of Plot Nos. 161, 163 and 220 (new Plot No. 167). The petitioner filed an application for recording his name against the said plot on the basis of a will said to be executed on 06th June, 1978 by Prag Narayan in his favour. The said application was moved before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, who referred the matter to the Consolidation Officer on 08th May, 1990. In respect of the same land the contesting respondents made an application on 07th July, 1992 on the basis of a will dated 10th April, 1977. The Assistant Consolidation Officer did not send the matter to the Consolidation Officer and passed an order on 14th August, 1992 in favour of the contesting respondents to record their names on the basis of the said will. 3. In the matter of the petitioner the Consolidation Officer passed separate orders on 05th September, 1992 and 02nd March, 1995 for recording the name of the petitioner on the basis of the will dated 06th June, 1978. Consequently, in respect of the same plot two contradictory orders, one by the Consolidation Officer dated 05th September, 1992 and 02nd March, 1995 and another by the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 14th August, 1992 on the basis of the will dated 07th July 1992 came to be passed. 4. Later on the contesting respondents moved an application before the Consolidation Officer to recall his order dated 05th September, 1992 and 02nd March, 1995. The Consolidation Officer after hearing both the parties was of the view that two contradictory orders are in existence in respect of the same plot on the basis of two separate wills, therefore, he recalled his orders dated 05th September, 1992 and 02nd March, 1995 vide order dated 31st March, 2003. 5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 31st March, 2003 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was dismissed on 13th April, 2005. 5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 31st March, 2003 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was dismissed on 13th April, 2005. Dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, being Revision No. 54, which has also been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 6. In the meantime the contesting respondents also filed a revision against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The said revision has been allowed by the revisional Court and the matter has been remanded back before the Settlement Officer Consolidation to consider a fresh. 7. Regard may be had to the fact that aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 14th August, 1992 the petitioner had filed an appeal along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 24th August, 1994. The contesting respondents aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation preferred a revision, being Revision No. 28, before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision by recording following findings: ^^-------lgk;d pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dks nwljh olh;r Hkh xq.knks"k ds vk/kkj ij fuLrkj.k gsrq pdcUnh vf/kdkjh U;k;ky; dks Ásf"kr dj nsuk pkfg;s FkkA lgk;d cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh us ,sls vkns'k ds fo:) nsjh dk ykHk nsdj dksbZ =qfV ugha dh gSA dksbZ nwf"kr vkns'kksa ds lEcU/k esa fe;kn ds fcUnq ij mnkjrkiwoZd n`f"Vdks.k viuk;k tkuk pkfg;sA lgk;d cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh ds vkns'k fnukad 24-08-1994 esa fdlh gLr{ksi dh vko';drk ugha gS] fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** 8. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has clearly held that the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation does not suffer from any illegality, hence the revision is liable to be dismissed. But it appears that in the operative portion the revision has been allowed. It appears that no application has been filed by the petitioner for correction of the said mistake. 9. Be that as it may, the matter is pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who has allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of the petitioner vide order dated 24th August, 1994. It appears that no application has been filed by the petitioner for correction of the said mistake. 9. Be that as it may, the matter is pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who has allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of the petitioner vide order dated 24th August, 1994. Hence, without interfering in the matter, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his appeal, which is pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 10. No order as to costs.