Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2836 (ALL)

Swamidin v. A. D. C.

2023-12-15

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY

body2023
JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. The petitioner is aggrieved that well reasoned order of Appellate Authority dated 18.09.1984 whereby an order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 08.02.1984, on basis of a compromise was set aside and matter was remitted to Consolidation Officer to decide. 2. JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. The petitioner is aggrieved that well reasoned order of Appellate Authority dated 18.09.1984 whereby an order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 08.02.1984, on basis of a compromise was set aside and matter was remitted to Consolidation Officer to decide. 2. Sri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for petitioner has referred the following part of order passed by Appellate Authority:- ^^okn dk laf{kIr fooj.k bl izdkj gS fd vk/kkj o"kZ esa Hkxr dk uke ntZ gSA ftlesa muds lkFk ds'ko Bkdqj vkn lgk;d pdcanh vf/kdkjh }kjk le>kSrs ds lg[kkrsnkj ntZ dj fn;s x;s gSaA vihy drkZ Hkxr dk vkjksi gS fd mlus dksbZ fu'kkuh vaxwBk ugha yxk;k vFkok le>kSrk ugha fd;k gSA ;g mldh rugk Hkwfe gh ogha vdsyk dkfct FkkA vr% lg[kkrs ds uke rFkk lgk;d pdcanh vf/kdkjh dk vkns'k fujLr djkus gsrq ;g vihy izLrqr dh gSA eSaus v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k rFkk fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdksa dh cgl lquh ftlls Li"V gS fd lgk;d pdcanh va/kdkjh }kjk le>kSrk rFkk vkns'k ,d gh esa gS tcfd nksuksa dks vyx&vyx gksuk pkfg,A bUnziky] vejpUnz] ukckfyx gSa muds laj{kd uanfd'kksj gS tcfd mldh eka Lo;a thfor gSA uan fd'kksj us Lo;a viuh vksj ls gLrk{kj fd;s gSaA laj{kd dh vksj ls ughaA mRrj oknh dh vksj ls dgk x;k gS fd ;g vihy 08-02-84 ds fo:) 18-05-84 dks izLrqr dh x;h gS ftlesa foyEc dk dkj.k yM+ds dks chekj gksuk dgk gSA vr% vihy [kkfjt gksuh pkfg,A lwjt ds 5 yM+ds gSa vkSj ,d gh ifjokj ds gSaA fookfnr Hkwfe 1360 Qlyh ds iwoZ dh gSA vr% lHkh fgLlsnkj lgh ntZ fd;s x;s gSaA lgk;d pdcanh vf/kdkjh ds le>kSrs esa ,d fu'kkuh vaxwBk vf/kd yxk gqvk gSA vkSj Hkxr dk fu'kkuh vaxwBk eksgj :i esa yxk;k x;k gSA ftlesa fd fpag Li"V ugha gSA lgk;d pdcanh vf/kdkjh }kjk fu;e 25 v ds vUrxZr i{kksa dks le>kSrk fy[kus ds ckn mldks lquus ds i'pkr pdcanh desVh ds lnL;ksa ds gLrk{kj djkus pkfg;s rFkk mlh ds vuq:i vyx ls vkns'k ikfjr djuk pkfg;s tks blesa ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% vkns'k fu;ekuqdwy ugha gS ftls dk;e ugha j[kk tk ldrk gSA vkns'k vihy dk foyac {kek djrs gq, Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA fo}ku lgk;d pdcanh vf/kdkjh dk vkns'k fujLr djds okn fo}ku pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dks xq.knks"k ds vk/kkj ij i{kksa ds izek.k ij fuf.kZr djus gsrq izR;kofrZr fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh pdcanh vf/kdkjh pkSng ds le{k fnukad 29-09-84 dks is'k gksA** (Empahsis Supplied) 3. Learned counsel further submits that Revisional Authority without appreciating and considering above referred grounds for remand has made a new case and held that order passed by Appellate Authority was wrong and he has referred following paragraph of impugned order :- ^^tgka rd izfri{k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd ds bl rdZ dk iz'u gS fd Hkxr dks uksfVl ugha fn;k x;k Fkk blfy;s ;g eku fy;k tk;s fd Hkxr le>kSrs ds le; gkftj ugha gq;s gSa] eSa muds bl rdZ ls lger ugha gwaA lgk;d pdcanh vf/kdkjh Lo;a le>kSrs dk dk;Z xkao esa tkdj djrs gSaA vkSj lHkh dk'rdkjksa dks equknh ds }kjk lwpuk nh tkrh gS blfy;s uksfVl dk dksbZ ugha mBrk gS vkSj u bl vk/kkj ij bl vkns'k dks fujLr fd;k tk ldrk gSA tgka rd eka dks cyh u cukus dk iz'u gS lgk;d pdcanh vf/kdkjh us tks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS mlesa mUgksaus uUnfd'kksj dks ukckfyxksa dk cyh fy[kk gSA ,slh n'kk esa uUn fd'kksj ukckfyxksa ds cyh gSa vksj blesa dksbZ xyrh ugha gSA lgk;d pdcanh vf/kdkjh us vkns'k rFkk le>kSrk vyx&vyx fy[kh gS vkSj le>kSrs ij lHkh inksa ds gLrk{kj gS rFkk pdcanh lfefr ds nks lnL;ksa ds gLrk{kj ,oa fu'kuh vaxwBk gSA uUnfd'kksj dk tks gLrk{kj gS og muds Lo;a ds fy;s rFkk muds ukckfyxksa HkbZ;ksa dh vksj ls gSA vkSj ;g mudk gLrk{kj ukckfyx dh vksj ls Hkh ekuk tk;sxkA dsoy ;g dguk fd mudk gLrk{kj vius Lo;a ds fy;s gS ,slk dguk mfpr u gksxkA vkSj u bl vk/kkj ij bl vksn'k dks fujLr djus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; gh FkkA fuxjkuh Lrj ij tks lk{; fn;k gS mlls ;g ckr Li"V gS fd ;g Hkwfe gfj;k ds le; dh gSA 1356 esa bl Hkwfe dh eqír 37 lky vo'; fy[kh gqbZ gS ijUrq nksuksa dh xkVs tSls gfj;k ds uke ntZ Fks mlh vuqlkj Hkxr ds uke ntZ gSA ;g Hkwfe Hkxr dh vftZr ugha gSA vkSj gfj;k ds lHkh oa'kt blesa lg[kkrsnkj ekus tk;saxsA i{kksa dh ekU; oa'kkoyh fuEu izdkj gS%& bl izdkj mHk; i{k gfj;k ds gh oa'kt gSA vkSj gfj;k ds le; dh ;g Hkwfe fl) gksrh gSA bl vk/kkj ij Hkh fuxjkuh drkZx.k fookfnr [kkrs ds lg[kkrsnkj fl) gksrh gSaA c0v0p0 us l0p0v0 ds vkns'k dks fujLr djus esa loZFkk Hkwy dh gSA muds vkns'k esa gLr{ksi dh vko';drk gSA** (Emphasis Supplied) 4. Sri A.K. Rai, learned A.C.S.C. for State has supported the impugned order, however, not able to convince the Court that reasons given by Appellate Authority were considered or set aside by Appellate Authority. 5. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record. 6. As referred above, the Appellate Authority has returned a specific finding that mandatory provision of Rule 25-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1954) was not complied with, however, as referred, Revisional Authority has not even considered or adverted to said finding and considered the case in absolutely in a different direction despite no such finding was returned by Appellate Authority. 7. Rule 25-A of Rules of 1954 provides that in deciding dispute on the basis of conciliation in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 9A of Act of 1953. Assistant Consolidation Officer shall record the terms of conciliation in the presence of at least two members of the Consolidation Committee of the village. Terms of conciliation then be read over to the parties concerned, their signature of thumb impression be obtained as well as the member of consolidation committee present shall also sign the terms of conciliation. The order of Consolidation Officer does not complied with essential conditions. The finding returned by Settlement Officer Consolidation are not corroborated from documents annexed along with Counter Affidavit as Annexure CA-2, however, findings returned by Revisional Authority are not based on correct reading of said document. The document is not signed by two members of Consolidation Committee. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Revisional Authority has committed irregularity and illegality, therefore, impugned order is set aside and order passed by Appellate Authority is upheld and Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the case afresh, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from today, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.