Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2044 (ALL)

Kanta Devi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation

2018-09-24

RAJIV JOSHI

body2018
JUDGMENT : RAJIV JOSHI, J. 1. Vakalatnama filed today by Sri S.C. Verma, Advocate on behalf of petitioners is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Sri Sushil Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 states that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit and the writ petition is being decided on merits on the basis of consent of parties as per the Rules of this Court. 4. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.8.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Muzaffarnagar in Revision Nos. 212 and 213 filed under Section 48 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act). 5. It reflects from the record that against the proposal made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, an objection was raised by the respondent no.3 that his second chak be abolished and in its place, the land adjoining to his first chak no. 150 be allotted. The petitioners were satisfied with the proposal made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and therefore, he did not file any objection. The objection filed by the respondent no.3 was allowed vide order dated 30.3.2017 along with other objections, whereby he was allotted chak as per his demand although the objection of the respondent no.3 was allowed but he chosen to file appeal under Section 21 (2) of the Act, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.1.2018, whereby he demanded the allotment of land over plot no. 1351. 6. The specific finding has been recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation that he never demanded chak over the plot no. 1351 and therefore, there is no justification for allotting the said land, which was earlier allotted to the petitioners on the basis of consent of other chak holders. Against that order, two revisions were filed by the respondent no.3 bearing nos. 212 and 213 under Section 48 (1) of the Act, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 20.8.2018 and the respondent no.3 was allotted chak over plot no. 1351. 7. The chak of the petitioners was disturbed without considering the finding as recorded by the Appellate Authority as well as the case of the petitioners. 212 and 213 under Section 48 (1) of the Act, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 20.8.2018 and the respondent no.3 was allotted chak over plot no. 1351. 7. The chak of the petitioners was disturbed without considering the finding as recorded by the Appellate Authority as well as the case of the petitioners. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision Nos. 212 and 213 are impugned in the writ petition. 8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no initial demand with regard to the plot no. 1351 and therefore, the said demand was challenged by the petitioners before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was turned down as the same was never raised before the Consolidation Officer but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the order without considering the same and has allotted the land on plot no. 1351 to the respondent no.3 although the said plot was allotted to the petitioners on the basis of consent of the parties before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. 9. On the other hand, Sri Sushil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has supported the finding as recorded in the impugned order. 10. I have considered the rival submissions raised by the parties and perused the record. The impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation indicates that neither the case of any of the parties has been considered nor the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer Consolidation has been set aside, even the fact has not been considered that the initial demand of the respondent no.3 before the Consolidation Officer was different, which he challenged at the appellate stage. 12. Under these circumstances, the order dated 20.8.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained as it has been passed without considering the case of the parties and is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar by restoring the Revision Nos. 212 and 213 on its original number and decide the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the affected parties. 13. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar by restoring the Revision Nos. 212 and 213 on its original number and decide the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the affected parties. 13. Since, the matter is old one, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar is directed to the decide the said revisions as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 14. Writ petition is accordingly, allowed. 15. Till the disposal of the aforesaid revisions, parties are directed to maintain status quo over the spot.