Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2193 (ALL)

Ram Bali v. Deputy Director of Consolidation

2023-09-21

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY

body2023
JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. Heard Sri Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents. None appeared on behalf of contesting-respondents, despite this writ is listed today for further hearing. 2. This Court has passed following orders on 23.08.2023 and 28.08.2023: 23.08.2023 "1. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that objection filed by petitioners under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was allowed by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 12.06.1974, however appeal thereof filed by contesting-respondents was allowed and revision filed by petitioners was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that petitioners were in possession before Zamindari abolition and, therefore, become Sirdar. However, since without any order name of respondents were recorded in basic year and thus objections were filed. Consolidation Officer by reasoned order has returned finding that petitioners were recorded in 1371 Fasli and claim of respondents on basis of a Bainama was rejected since they were not able to prove it. 3. Learned counsel further submits that Appellate Authority while the allowing appeal filed by respondents has returned a finding that entry of year 1356 Fasli was in favour of respondents and correction made in 1359 Fasli was not correct, however it was not a correct finding and despite contentions were raised in this regard, the Revisional Authority has erroneously rejected the revision. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for respondents seeks and is granted time to reply the above submissions. 5. List on 28th August, 2023 at 02.00 PM for further hearing. 28.08.2023 "Delay Condonation Application No.15 of 2023 Heard. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay is condoned in filing substitution application. Application is allowed. Substitution Application No.16 of 2023 Heard. This is an application for substituting legal heirs of respondent No.6/3/4. This application is allowed at the risk of counsel for petitioner and he is directed to carry out necessary changes in cause title within three days. Order on memo of petition Put up for further hearing on 12.09.2023." 3. The Consolidation Officer after considering rival objections has allowed objection of petitioner and rejected objection of contesting-respondents vide order dated 12.06.1974. The findings returned by Consolidation Officer are reproduced hereinafter: (Emphasis Supplied) 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that appeals filed thereof were allowed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and relevant part is mentioned hereinafter: (Emphasis Supplied) 5. The Consolidation Officer after considering rival objections has allowed objection of petitioner and rejected objection of contesting-respondents vide order dated 12.06.1974. The findings returned by Consolidation Officer are reproduced hereinafter: (Emphasis Supplied) 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that appeals filed thereof were allowed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and relevant part is mentioned hereinafter: (Emphasis Supplied) 5. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has filed revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation inter alia on various grounds, however, Revisional Authority in a very cryptic and cursory manner rejected revision vide order dated 27.09.1977 and relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter: (Emphasis Supplied) 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has also referred memo of revision which is annexed as Annexure - 4 to this writ petition wherein following averments were taken: (Emphasis Supplied) 7. The claim of petitioner was based on revenue entries as well as on order passed in earlier civil suits. The Consolidation Officer has returned a finding that 'Bainama' was not proved. The findings were interfered by the Appellate Authority, therefore, the Revisional Authority which has power to examine any finding of fact or law as well as power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 ought to have considered and referred the grounds/averments mentioned in memo of revision, however, as referred above such consideration was apparently missing. Rejection of copy of Khasra of 1358 Fasli was based on a legally unsustainable ground that copies were issued by different authorities. 8. Since counsel for contesting-respondents has not appeared and in the counter affidavit, averments of writ petition were vaguely denied, and above referred arguments of the counsel for petitioner are not contradicted and as referred above, I am of opinion that the Revisional Authority has committed a legal error, therefore, despite present case being an old matter, still in the interest of justice, impugned order dated 27.09.1977 is set aside and matter is remitted back to Revisional Authority to decide the revision afresh after considering averments taken in revision as well as arguments of rival parties, within a period of six months from today, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Since number of parties have died and their respective legal heirs are substituted, therefore, petitioner is directed to file an amended copy of cause title before Revisional Authority within a period of four weeks from today. 10. 9. Since number of parties have died and their respective legal heirs are substituted, therefore, petitioner is directed to file an amended copy of cause title before Revisional Authority within a period of four weeks from today. 10. With aforesaid observation/ direction, this writ petition is disposed of.