Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 88 (ALL)

Lalji Singh v. D. D. C.

2018-01-09

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Case has been called out in the revised list. Learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel are present. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 20.8.1998 passed by respondent No. 3-Assistant Consolidation Officer, Pratappur (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.C.O. ') and 31.12.2003 passed by respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C. '). 4. The facts of the case are that Sri Dashmi i.e. the father of petitioner executed a sale-deed dated 27.6.1998 regarding the disputed plots in favour of Smt. Daulti Devi, mother of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. On the basis of the aforesaid sale-deed, Smt. Daulti Devi instituted Suit No. 177 of 1998 under Section 12 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') before respondent No. 3 for mutation of her name in respect of the disputed plots. It has been stated by counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition that in the aforesaid case, the petitioner had filed an objection contesting the case filed by the Smt. Daulti Devi. However, respondent No. 3 vide order dated 20.8.1998 allowed Suit No. 177 of 1998 filed by Smt. Daulti Devi, and directed that the name of Smt. Daulti Devi be recorded in respect of the disputed plots. The aforesaid order was passed on the basis of a compromise entered into between Smt. Daulti Devi and her vendor Sri Dashmi i.e. the father of the petitioner. It has been alleged in the writ petition that the said compromise was fraudulent and the father of the petitioner had never appeared before respondent No. 3 and signed the compromise. Against the order dated 20.8.1998, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 23 of 2002 under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 before respondent No. 2-Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as, 'S. O. C'). The said appeal was allowed by respondent No. 2 vide his judgment and order dated 25.1.2003. Against the order dated 25.1.2003 passed by respondent No. 2, respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are the successors of Smt. Daulti Devi, filed Revision No. 398/513 of 2003 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before respondent No. 1. The said appeal was allowed by respondent No. 2 vide his judgment and order dated 25.1.2003. Against the order dated 25.1.2003 passed by respondent No. 2, respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are the successors of Smt. Daulti Devi, filed Revision No. 398/513 of 2003 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 by his order dated 31.12.2003 allowed the said revision by setting aside the order dated 25.1.2003 passed by S. O. C. and restored the order dated 20.8.1998 passed by A. C. O. 5. A perusal of the order dated 31.12.2003 passed by respondent No. 1, shows that the aforesaid order has been passed on the ground that the appeal filed by the petitioner was not maintainable as admittedly Sri Dashmi i.e. the father of the petitioner was the owner of the disputed plots and, therefore, the petitioner was not an aggrieved party against the order dated 20.8.1998 passed by A. O. C. and also because no temporary injunction was granted to the petitioner in Original Suit No. 126 of 1999 instituted by Sri Dashmi praying for cancelling the sale-deed dated 27.6.1998. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 bringing on record the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chunar, Mirzapur. 7. I have perused the judgment dated 27.11.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chunar, Mirzapur, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed Original Suit No. 126 of 1999. 8. A perusal of the judgment dated 27.11.2009 passed by the Trial Court shows that in the aforesaid case Issue No. 1 was framed to the effect that whether the sale-deed dated 27.6.1998 was liable to be cancelled on the grounds stated in the plaint instituting Original Suit No. 126 of 1999 and the Trial Court has decided the said issue against plaintiff i.e. Sri Dashmi. Counsel for petitioner has fairly stated at the Bar that an appeal was filed against the decree of the Trial Court, but the said appeal has also been dismissed. 9. Counsel for petitioner has fairly stated at the Bar that an appeal was filed against the decree of the Trial Court, but the said appeal has also been dismissed. 9. In view of the fact the Original Suit No. 126 of 1999 instituted by Sri Dashmi i.e. the father of the petitioner for cancelling the sale-deed dated 27.6.1998 has been dismissed by the Trial Court, no purpose would be served by interfering in the impugned orders dated 20.8.1998 and 31.12.2003 passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 1. Further, no illegality has been shown by counsel for the petitioner in the reasons given by respondent No. 3 in his order dated 20.8.1998. 10. For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition is devoid of merits, and is, accordingly dismissed. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.