Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1337 (ALL)

Sukhdeo v. D. D. C.

2018-05-25

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT : SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceeding from which the present writ petition arises relates to plots included in Khata No. 79 (hereinafter referred to as, 'disputed khata'). Petitioner No. 1, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are the sons of respondent No. 2. 3. During the consolidation proceedings held in the village, petitioners filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') before the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.') claiming themselves to be the co-tenure holders of the disputed khata. The revenue records relating to the basic year reflected the name of the respondents as tenure holders of the disputed khata. The said objections were dismissed by the C.O. vide his order dated 15.3.1965. Consequently, appeal was filed by the petitioners, which was also dismissed by the Appellate Court vide its order dated 2.8.1965. Against the order dated 2.8.1965 passed by the Appellate Court, petitioners filed a Revision before respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi, (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), which was numbered as Revision No. 679/1965. The said revision was allowed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 22.12.1965 and the matter was remanded back to the S.O.C. for a fresh decision. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.S.O.C.') vide his order dated 5.8.1966 allowed Appeal No. 915 filed by the petitioners. It appears that subsequently Revision No. 2109 was filed by the respondent No. 2 before the D.D.C. against the order dated 5.8.1966 passed by A.S.O.C. and the D.D.C. vide his order dated 26.8.1969 allowed the aforesaid revision filed by respondent No. 2 whereby the D.D.C. set aside the order dated 5.8.1966 passed by A.S.O.C. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that no notice of the aforesaid revision was issued and proceedings in the aforesaid revision were ex-parte against the petitioners as the receipts showing service of notice of the said revision on the petitioners are fraudulent and did not contain either the signature or thump impression of the petitioners. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that no notice of the aforesaid revision was issued and proceedings in the aforesaid revision were ex-parte against the petitioners as the receipts showing service of notice of the said revision on the petitioners are fraudulent and did not contain either the signature or thump impression of the petitioners. Consequently, petitioners filed an application dated 29.9.1999 before the D.D.C. praying that the order dated 26.8.1969 passed by him in Revision No. 2109 be recalled and fresh orders may be passed in the aforesaid revision after hearing the petitioners. Application dated 29.9.1999 filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 3.4.2001 on grounds of delay as the same was filed 30 years after the previous order of the D.D.C. 5. A perusal of the order dated 3.4.2001 passed by the D.D.C. would show that there was a recital in the order dated 26.8.1969 showing that counsel for the parties had been heard and there was also a recital referring to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. It is also evident that after the order dated 26.8.1969 passed by the D.D.C., final consolidation scheme must have been finalized and consequential documents must have been prepared by the consolidation authorities on the basis of the order dated 26.8.1969 passed by the D.D.C. In his counter affidavit respondent No. 2 has filed C.H. form 23, 41 and 45 prepared under the Act 1953 and the Rules framed there under. Kisan Bahi in favour of respondent was also prepared on the basis of the order dated 26.8.1969 passed by the D.D.C. A perusal of the order dated 3.4.2001 passed by the D.D.C. also shows that the counsel for the respondents had also, on certain occasions, accepted costs from the counsel for respondents during the proceedings in Revision culminating in the previous order dated 26.8.1969. In the circumstance, there is no illegality or perversity in the order dated 3.4.2001 passed by the D.D.C. dismissing the recall application filed by the petitioners on the ground that there was inordinate delay in filing the said application and the explanation given by the petitioners was not acceptable. 6. For the aforesaid reason, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merit, and is, accordingly dismissed.