Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 678 (ALL)

MANGAL v. D. D. C.

2018-03-20

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT : SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Mishra, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Purushottam Mani Tripathi, counsel for respondent no. 3 and the Standing Counsel who represents respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. Petitioner no. 1 and one Buddhan are the sons of deceased Rameshar. Respondent no. 3 and one Ram Avtar are the sons of deceased Sukhari. The dispute between the parties relates to Khata No. 310. In the revenue records, Sukhari and subsequently respondent no. 3 and Ram Avtar were recorded as co-tenure holder in the aforesaid Khata No. 310. During the consolidation operations held in the village, the petitioner along with his brother Buddhan filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer stating that the name of respondent no. 3 and Ram Avtar was wrongly recorded in the revenue records relating to the basic year and their names be deleted and the name of the petitioner and Buddhan be recorded as sole khatedar of Khata No. 310. The said application was filed on 13.5.1986 and was highly belated. On the aforesaid application dated 13.5.1986, Case No. 1920 was registered in the court of Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'). The Consolidation Officer vide his judgment and order dated 18.11.1999 dismissed Case No. 1920 after recording his finding that the facts explaining the delay in instituting the aforesaid case were not correct and therefore the application was liable to be dismissed. Against the judgment and order dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act which was registered as Revision No. 637/676 in the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1. The Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1 vide his judgment and order dated 13.2.2003 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. The orders dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Consolidation Officer and 13.2.2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation have been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that the Consolidation Officer i.e. respondent no. 2 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. The orders dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Consolidation Officer and 13.2.2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation have been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that the Consolidation Officer i.e. respondent no. 2 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1 have taken a very technical stand in dismissing the objections of the petitioner and should have considered case on merits as the matter related to the title of the petitioner over the disputed plots. It has been further argued by counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 2 had failed to exercise his jurisdiction as provided under Section 9-A (2) of the Act, 1953 by refusing to hear the objections of the petitioner on merits and for the aforesaid reason the judgment and orders dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Consolidation Officer and 13.2.2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are liable to be set-aside. 4. Considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 5. A reading of the order dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Consolidation Officer shows that before the petitioner filed his objections under Section 9-A (2) of the Act, an order dated 16.11.1985 was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of a compromise entered into between the petitioner and Buddhan on the one hand as well as respondent no. 3 and Ram Avtar on the other and 1/4 share was given to each of the aforesaid persons. From the contents of the aforesaid order dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Consolidation Officer, it is also evident that order dated 16.11.1985 was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of a compromise allegedly entered into between the parties. The petitioner had not denied his participation in the compromise on the basis of which the aforesaid order had been passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Consolidation Officer rightly came to the conclusion that the facts stated in the application of the petitioner explaining the delay in filing his objections were not correct and therefore it would not be proper to condone the delay in filing the objections. The aforesaid also shows that the objections filed by the petitioner were not maintainable. The aforesaid also shows that the objections filed by the petitioner were not maintainable. In his memorandum of revision instituting Revision No. 637/676, the petitioner merely stated that he had put his thumb impression on the compromise culminating in the order dated 16.11.1985 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under the impression that the said application was merely to record the name of petitioner and his brother Buddhan in place of their deceased father Rameshar. No such explanation was given by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer and the explanation given in the memorandum of revision was obviously an afterthought by the petitioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as the order dated 13.2.2002 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing Revision No. 637/676. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any perversity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the consolidation authorities. The orders dated 18.11.1999 and 13.2.2002 are based on findings of fact and not amenable to interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.