Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 7 (ALL)

VIKRAM SINGH v. D. D. C.

2018-01-02

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT : SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26. 2. 2001 passed by respondent No. 1- Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'D. D. C. '), Bulandshahr. 2. The facts of the case are that against allotment of Chak by the Assistant Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'A. O. C.'), appeals were filed by the villagers before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S. O. C. '), which were disposed by order dated 16.12.1990 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bijnor at Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as, 'A. S. O. C. ') 3. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was satisfied with the judgment dated 16.12.1990 and the Chaks allotted to him through the aforesaid judgment and order of A. S. O. C. and therefore, did not challenge the same. However, the order dated 16.12.1990 was challenged by respondent No. 2 under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1955') before respondent No. 1 through Revision No. 1518. Revision No. 1518 was filed on 26.3.1991. It has further been stated that against the order dated 16. 12. 1990 passed by A. S. O. C., a restoration application was filed by one Shri Peetam Singh, which was dismissed on 29.11.1995. The aforesaid order was not challenged by Shri Peetam Singh, but the respondent No. 2 challenged the same under Section 48 of the Act, 1955 before respondent No. 1 by filing Revision No. 1753. Revision No. 1753 was filed on 8.12.1995. Subsequently, Revision No. 1753 was dismissed in default vide order dated 30.11.1998 passed by respondent No. 1. Thereafter restoration application was filed by respondent No. 2 on 31. 5. 1999 praying that order dated 30.11.1998 be recalled and Revision No. 1753 be heard on merits. The aforesaid application dated 31.5.1999 was allowed by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 6.3.2000 and Revision No. 1753 was restored to its original number. Subsequently, Revision Nos. 1518 and 1753 were consolidated by respondent No. 1, who vide order dated 26.2.2001 decided the same. 4. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that through the order dated 26. 2. Subsequently, Revision Nos. 1518 and 1753 were consolidated by respondent No. 1, who vide order dated 26.2.2001 decided the same. 4. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that through the order dated 26. 2. 2001, the respondent No. 1 has altered the Chaks allotted to him and the same has been done without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. It has been stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that he was not even impleaded by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Revision No. 1753. On the basis of aforesaid averments made in the writ petition learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 is in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore liable to be set aside. 5. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their counter affidavit wherein they have stated that an impleadement application was filed by them in Revision Nos. 1753 praying to implead the petitioner as respondent in the said case. The said impleadment application was allowed and the petitioner had filed his Vakalatnama in the said case. The alleged Vakalatnama of the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure No. CA- 2 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 6. On the basis of averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have argued that petitioner had appeared before respondent No. 1 and was given sufficient opportunity of hearing and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1, and thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. In his rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has contested the averments made in the counter affidavit by stating that the petitioner had not signed any Vakalatnama and the Vakalatnama, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit, is forged and signatures on the Vakalatnama of the petitioners were also forged falsely showing that the petitioner had appeared before respondent No. 1 in Revision No. 1753. 8. Considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. A perusal of the impugned order dated 26.2.2001 passed by D. D. C., Bulandshahr shows that the Chaks of the petitioner have been altered by the said order. 8. Considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. A perusal of the impugned order dated 26.2.2001 passed by D. D. C., Bulandshahr shows that the Chaks of the petitioner have been altered by the said order. However, it has been recorded in the order that by the said alterations, the petitioner, who is Chakdar No. 145, would retain his original holdings. In case the impugned order was passed by respondent No. 1 without issuing any notice or without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and if the said order adversely affects the petitioner, the petitioner had a remedy to file a recall application before respondent No. 1 for recalling the impugned order. The dispute in the present case is whether the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing by respondent No. 1 before passing the impugned order and the said dispute can be resolved only after recording a finding on the conflicting allegations made by respondent Nos. 2/3 and the petitioner regarding the signatures of the petitioner on the Vakalatnama shown to have been filed by him in Revision No. 1753 and annexed as Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit. The aforesaid issue involves disputed questions of fact and proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not appropriate remedy for the same. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.