Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 89 (ALL)

Mahadeo Singh v. Addl. D. M. (Admn. )

2018-01-09

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Salil Kumar Rai, J. The case has been called out in the revised list. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents No. 1 to 4 are present. 3. In view of the office report dated 8. 1. 2018, service of notice of the writ petition upon respondent Nos. 5 to 11 is deemed to be sufficient. 4. The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.10.1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad in Revision No. 2677/9 of 1997-98 (Gopi Singh vs. Mahadeo Singh) and the orders dated 27.3.2001 passed by Consolidation Officer, Meja Allahabad i. e. respondent No. 4 as well as order dated 16.4.2001 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Allahabad i. e. respondent No. 3. 5. The facts of the case are that during the consolidation operation conducted in the village under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") an order dated 18. 9. 1984 was passed by the respondent No. 4, which was subsequently recalled by respondent No. 4 vide his order dated 9. 9. 1986 on an application filed by Gopi Singh, the predecessor in interest of respondent No. 6 to 9. 6. Against the aforesaid order dated 9. 9. 1986 passed by respondent No. 4, the petitioner filed an Appeal No. 31/150/212 under Section 11 (1) of the Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Allahabad i.e. respondent No. 2, who vide his order dated 17.8.1992 set aside the orders dated 9.9.1986 and 18.9.1984 passed by respondent No. 4 and remanded back the matter to respondent No. 4 to decide the claim of the parties afresh. 7. Against the aforesaid order dated 17.8.1992 passed by respondent No. 3, Shri Gopi Singh i. e. the predecessor in interest of respondent No. 6 to 9 filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act before respondent No. 1, which was numbered as Revision No. 2677/9 of 1997/98. The said revision was allowed by respondent No. 1 vide his impugned order dated 29.10.1999 and the matter was remanded back to respondent No. 2 to decide the appeals afresh. The said revision was allowed by respondent No. 1 vide his impugned order dated 29.10.1999 and the matter was remanded back to respondent No. 2 to decide the appeals afresh. In his impugned order dated 29.10.1999, respondent No. 1, recorded his opinion that respondent No. 2 had exceeded his jurisdiction in allowing the appeal without considering the question whether the delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner was liable to be condoned or not, and therefore, directed respondent No. 2, to consider the appeals afresh only after deciding the question of delay in filing the appeal. 8. It appears that after the remand of the case by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2, proceedings started before respondent No. 4, and on the said proceedings, orders dated 27.3.2001 and 16.4.2001 were passed, which have also been challenged in the present writ petition. 9. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 29.10.1999 passed by respondent No. 1, is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as revision under Section 48 of the Act was not maintainable against the order dated 17.8.1992 passed by respondent No. 2, as the order passed by respondent No. 2 was an interlocutory order. 10. The counsel for the petitioner has further argued that after the matter was remanded by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2, proceedings should have been finalized by respondent No. 2 and no order could be passed by respondent No. 4 before respondent No. 2 had finally decided the appeal in pursuance to the order dated 29.10.1999 passed by respondent No. 1. Hence, the orders dated 27.3.2001 and 16.4.2001 passed by respondent No. 4 are also without jurisdiction and illegal. 11. I have perused the records. In paragraph No. 14 of the writ petition, it has been admitted by the petitioner that the appeal filed by him was delayed and beyond time by twenty days. Thus, respondent No. 2 could not have decided the appeal filed by the petitioner without condoning the delay in filing the same. A perusal of the order dated 17.8.1992 passed by respondent No. 2 shows that the said order has been passed without considering the delay in filing the appeal and without condoning the said delay. 12. Thus, respondent No. 2 could not have decided the appeal filed by the petitioner without condoning the delay in filing the same. A perusal of the order dated 17.8.1992 passed by respondent No. 2 shows that the said order has been passed without considering the delay in filing the appeal and without condoning the said delay. 12. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment reported in Ram Kali Devi vs. Manager, Punjab National Bank, 1997 31 AllLR 222, the order dated 17.8.1992 passed by respondent No. 1 deciding the appeal on merits was without jurisdiction and thus there is no illegality in the order dated 29.10.1999 passed by respondent No. 1, whereby respondent No. 1 has remanded the matter to respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal on merits and also on the issue of limitation/delay in filing the appeal. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, so far as it has been filed against the order dated 29.10.1999. 14. The orders dated 27.3.2001 and 16.4.2001 are merely consequence of the order dated 29.10.1999 passed by respondent No. 1. 15. Respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the Appeal No. 31/150/212 filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted before him. 16. The orders dated 27.3.2001 and 16.4.2001 shall be subject to the orders passed by respondent No. 2 in the aforesaid appeal. 17. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.