Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1317 (ALL)

Paras Nath v. Deputy Director of Consolidation

2019-05-14

RAJIV JOSHI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Joshi, J. 1. Heard Sri Mohan Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.4.2019 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Prayagraj in Revision No. 201/200/143/2019. 2. It reflects from the record that name of one Barkat Ullah son of Rasool was recorded in revenue record in the basic year. Subsequently, an objection was filed by one Tirath Singh under section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as an Act), which was allowed vide order dated 18.11.1976 and the name of Tirath Singh was directed to be recorded in the revenue record. Thereafter, Tirath Singh transferred the disputed property to the mother of petitioner Ram Pyari vide registered sale-deed dated 16.10.1985 and the name of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue record after the death of Ram Pyari. 3. Subsequently, from the side of the respondents, it was pleaded that the order dated 18.11.1976 was recalled by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 18.11.1977. Thereafter, petitioners filed an application for recalling the order dated 18.11.1977, on which a report of handwriting expert was called and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 18.11.1977 was found to be a forged order and on the basis of the same, the order was recalled vide order dated 27.7.2009 at the instance of petitioners. 4. Subsequently, an appeal was filed against the order dated 18.11.1976 passed by Consolidation Officer by respondent No. 2 before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which is still pending. In the meantime, a revision was filed against the order dated 27.7.2009 by the contesting respondents, which was dismissed by the impugned order directing the revisional authority i.e. Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the appeal, which was filed against the order dated 18.11.1976. In the meantime, Deputy Director of Consolidation has stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 18.11.1976, which is impugned vide impugned order dated 12.4.2019. 5. Contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that there is no justification for staying the order dated 18.11.1976 passed by Consolidation Officer and even no such prayer has been made on behalf of respondent No. 2. 6. I have considered the submission as raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 7. 5. Contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that there is no justification for staying the order dated 18.11.1976 passed by Consolidation Officer and even no such prayer has been made on behalf of respondent No. 2. 6. I have considered the submission as raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 7. Admittedly, against the order dated 18.11.1976, appeal No. 1728/1125/344/281 is pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the revisional authority is not at all justified to stay the operation of the said order. Remedy is available to contesting respondents to file an application in the pending appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation for staying that order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part by quashing the impugned order dated 12.4.2019 so far as it stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 18.11.1976, which is impugned in the aforesaid appeal.