Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 107 (ALL)

Raja v. D. D. C.

2020-01-09

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2020
JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard the Counsel for the parties. 2. Against the order dated 10.6.1983 passed by the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.') in the chak allotment proceedings registered under section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), the respondents filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') on 9.2.2009. The appeal was filed almost twenty five years after the order passed by the CO., and therefore, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was also filed by the respondents to condone the delay in filing the said appeal. The explanation for the delay in filing the appeal was that proceedings registered under section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 as a result of title dispute regarding the disputed plots were pending before the appropriate consolidation authorities and subsequently before this Court and the said dispute was finally decided in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 28.8.2002 passed by this Court. The S.O.C. vide his order dated 26.10.2009 dismissed the delay condonation application and consequently the appeal filed by the respondents on the ground that the respondents had not satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the appeal. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2009 passed by the S.O.C., the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed Revision No. 11 under section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), which was allowed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 12.7.2012 and the matter was remanded back to the S.O.C. to pass fresh orders after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a recall application praying for recall of the order dated 12.7.2012 passed by the D.D.C. on the ground that the order dated 12.7.2012 had been passed without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing. The said recall application has been dismissed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 20.2.2014 on the ground that the petitioner had notice of the case and had appeared in the case on 22.9.2011. The orders dated 20.2.2014 and 12.7.2012 passed by the D.D.C. have been challenged in the present writ petition. 4. The said recall application has been dismissed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 20.2.2014 on the ground that the petitioner had notice of the case and had appeared in the case on 22.9.2011. The orders dated 20.2.2014 and 12.7.2012 passed by the D.D.C. have been challenged in the present writ petition. 4. A reading of the order dated 12.7.2012 passed by the D.D.C. shows that through the aforesaid order, the D.D.C. has allowed the revision and remanded back the matter to the S.O.C. only on the ground that the petitioner would be deprived of justice, if the delay is not condoned. A reading of the order dated 12.7.2012 passed by the D.D.C. also shows that in the aforesaid order, there is a recital that the opposite party in the revision, i.e., the petitioner in the present case did not appear despite summons having been issued to him. The aforesaid recital in the order dated 12.7.2012 has been ignored by the D.D.C. in his order dated 20.2.2014 on the ground that the petitioner had signed the order-sheet of the case on 22.9.2011. It has been stated in paragraph No. 29 of the writ petition that the alleged signature of the petitioner on the order-sheet of the revision has been forged and the petitioner had never appeared before the D.D.C. as he had no notice of the case. Further, the complete order-sheet of the revision from 12.5.2011 to 12.7.2012 has been annexed as Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition and a perusal of the aforesaid order-sheet shows that the said order-sheet had not been signed by the Presiding Officer on 22.9.2011. An averment to that effect has also been made in paragraph No. 31 of the writ petition which has not been denied in paragraph No. 26 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. The D.D.C., without considering the contradictions between the facts as visible from the order-sheet and as noted in the recitals in the order dated 12.7.2012, has recorded a finding that the petitioner had notice of the case and had also appeared in the same, and therefore, has dismissed the recall application as not maintainable. The order dated 20.2.2014 has apparently been passed without considering the relevant materials on record and without verifying as to whether the signatures on the order-sheet dated 22.9.2011 were of the petitioner. The order dated 20.2.2014 has apparently been passed without considering the relevant materials on record and without verifying as to whether the signatures on the order-sheet dated 22.9.2011 were of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 20.2.2014 passed by the D.D.C. is liable to be set aside. 5. A perusal of the order dated 12.7.2012 shows that in the aforesaid order, the D.D.C. has not given any reasons for setting aside the order dated 26.10.2009 passed by the S.O.C. It is the case of the respondents that they could not file any appeal against the order dated 10.6.1983 passed by the CO. as their title over the disputed plots was not accepted initially by the CO. and the question regarding their title over the disputed plots was finally decided in their favour vide order dated 28.8.2002 passed by this Court. 6. It has been stated by the Counsel for the respondents, during the course of argument, that even after the order dated 28.8.2002, the respondents could not get their name recorded in proceedings under Rule 109 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1954') and it is for the aforesaid reasons that there was a delay in filing the appeal. The Court is not expressing any opinion or any findings on the correctness of the averments made by the respondents explaining the delay in filing the appeal. It is sufficient to note that in his order dated 12.7.2012, the D.D.C. has not recorded any finding as to whether the delay had been properly explained by the respondents. A reasoned order condoning the delay was necessary, especially in view of the fact that the appeal was being filed almost twenty five years after the order passed by the CO. and the tenure holders must have settled over the plots allotted to them and any order in appeal filed by the respondents could reopen the chak allotment proceedings disturbing the chaks of other tenure holders. Similarly, in case the petitioner did not have proper notice of the case, the delay in filing the revision could not have been condoned merely on the ground that the petitioner had not filed any affidavit rebutting the facts stated in the affidavit filed by the respondents explaining the delay. Similarly, in case the petitioner did not have proper notice of the case, the delay in filing the revision could not have been condoned merely on the ground that the petitioner had not filed any affidavit rebutting the facts stated in the affidavit filed by the respondents explaining the delay. The revision was also filed almost one and a half years after the order passed by the S.O.C. Apparently, the order dated 12.7.2012 passed by the D.D.C. is a non-speaking order inasmuch as no reasons have been given in the same, and therefore, the said order is also liable to be set aside. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the orders dated 20.2.2014 and 12.7.2012 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot to pass fresh orders in Revision No. 11 registered under section 48 of the Act, 1953 in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him after giving the necessary parties an opportunity of hearing. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed.