Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1362 (ALL)

Ram Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P.

2020-11-24

JASPREET SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioners have preferred the instant petition seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 9.8.2019 by which the Court of Additional Commissioner Consolidation on a transfer petition has transferred the pending proceedings in the Court of Settlement Officer of Consolidation-II, Pratapgarh to the Court of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Amethi. 3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the order dated 9.8.2019 has been passed without hearing to the petitioners. It has been submitted that the instant matter relates to land situate in Village Sheetalmau, Pargana Rampur, Tehsil -Lalganj, District Pratapgarh. The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 had, filed their objections under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 bearing No. 45 of 2017-18 before the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Pratapgarh, which was decided on 11.6.2018 whereby the objections were rejected by the Consolidation Officer. 4. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid, the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 had preferred an appeal bearing No. 1632/2018. The aforesaid appeal was pending before the Court of Settlement Officer of Consolidation-II, Pratapgarh wherein the petitioners had also appeared. The petitioners on 15.10.2018 had filed an application in the appeal with the prayer that the application moved by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 dated 12.10.2018 is misleading as it also suffers from concealment of the facts. 5. Considering the application of the petitioners, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by means of the order dated 15.10.2018 recalled its earlier ex parte order dated 12.10.2018..It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 moved an application for transfer of the appeal from the Court of Settlement Officer of Consolidation-II to the Court of Settlement Officer of Consolidation-I, which was registered as Case No. 2123/2018. On 13.12.2018, the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh had passed an order transferring the said appeal from the Court of Settlement Officer of Consolidation-II to the Court of Settlement Officer of Consolidation-I, Pratapgarh. 6. On 7.1.2019, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation-I, Pratapgarh, before whom, the appeal stood transferred had fixed the date for hearing on 17.1.2019, but in the meantime, the said Court became vacant. 6. On 7.1.2019, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation-I, Pratapgarh, before whom, the appeal stood transferred had fixed the date for hearing on 17.1.2019, but in the meantime, the said Court became vacant. Thereafter, the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 again filed an application for transfer before the Commissioner of Consolidation. It is in the aforesaid application moved before the Commissioner of Consolidation bearing No. 546/2019, the impugned order has been passed. 7. The primary submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were not served inasmuch as the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 had mentioned the incorrect address of the petitioners in the memo of the appeal and, therefor, the ex parte order dated 9.8.2019 has been passed which deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 have filed their counter-affidavit and by refuting the aforesaid submissions has urged that the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 had earlier filed a petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No. 18690 of 2019 (Consolidation), wherein a direction was issued by this Court to expeditiously decide the transfer application bearing No. 546/2019. It has also been submitted that the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the address of the petitioners was wrongly mentioned is also incorrect inasmuch as it has been pointed put that the summons were sent to the petitioners on their address mentioned as Gram Lokapur, Post Sangramgarh, Pargana Dhingwas, Tehsil Kunda, District Pratapgarh. It has also been mentioned by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 that the registered cover was sent to the petitioners at the aforesaid address and he has filed the certified copy of the said envelopes which are returned back with the endorsement that non stays at the aforesaid address as Annexure No. 3 with the counter-affidavit. It has also been pointed out by Shri Pramod Kumar Singh that the same address as mentioned in the registered cover has also been indicated by the petitioners in the memo of the writ petition. Thus, it cannot be said that the notice was sent to the petitioners at the wrong address. It has also been pointed out by Shri Pramod Kumar Singh that the same address as mentioned in the registered cover has also been indicated by the petitioners in the memo of the writ petition. Thus, it cannot be said that the notice was sent to the petitioners at the wrong address. It has also been pointed that since the notices were sent and the petitioners did not appear coupled with the fact that High Court by means of the order dated 12.7.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 18690 of 2019 (Consolidation) had directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the transfer application expeditiously, hence, considering the aforesaid, the order dated 9.8.2019 'was passed and thus, it cannot be said that the said order requires any interference from this Court. 9. The Court has considered rival submissions and also perused the record. 10. Apparently, the issue before the Court is whether the impugned order of the transfer requires any interference or not. 11. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were not served with the notices, does not appear to be quite correct inasmuch as the learned Counsel for the petitioners could not dispute that the notices which were sent to the petitioners at their address which is the same as indicated by the petitioners themselves in the memo of the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners could not dispute that the certified copies of the notices which were sent by the Court at their correct address especially the endorsement that the petitioners were not residing at the said address. Thus, it is not a case where the notices were not issued. In fact, notices were issued at the correct addresses. Since, none appeared, hence, the impugned order was passed. 12. Be that as it may, this Court does not find that there is any error in the order passed by the Consolidation Commissioner. Moreover, once the proceedings have already been transferred, and is now pending before the Court of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Amethi and by means of the interim order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 12.9.2019, the proceedings have been held up. The learned Counsel for the petitioners could not point out any prejudice if the matter is now heard by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Amethi. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioners could not point out any prejudice if the matter is now heard by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Amethi. 13. This Court is of the opinion that ends of justice can be served by directing the opposite parties to appear before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Amethi, who shall take up the appeal with expedition and after affording art opportunity of hearing to the parties, shall decide the same most expeditiously say within a period of 45 days from the date, a copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. 14. With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. The interim order, granted earlier by this Court dated 12.9.2019 shall stands discharged. There shall no order as to costs.