Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1041 (ALL)

Ashok Kumar v. D. D. C.

2024-04-10

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 12/2023 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant Amendment Application has been filed on 13.12.2023 by which prayer has been made to allow the amendment in the prayer clause of the writ petition for quashing the orders dated 02.02.2000 and 26.08.2001 passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act. 3. Considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, no case is made out for Amendment by which prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 02.02.2000 & 26.08.2001 passed by Consolidation Officer/Assistant Consolidation Officer under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act, although the instant writ petition arises out of reference proceeding. 4. The Amendment Application is accordingly, rejected. Order on Writ Petition 1. Heard Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ram Autar Verma as well as Sri Dan Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 9 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Plot No. 3538 Area 2.88 acare situated in village Nademau, Pargana Saurikh, Tehsil Tirwa, District Kannauj belonged to one Bheekham Singh S/o Manohar Singh. After death of Bheekham Singh the names of Yogendra Singh, Brijendra Singh, Virendra Singh and Narendra Singh being their legal heirs were recorded over plot in question. Yogendra Singh had executed a sale-deed of his ¼ share in Plot No. 3538 in favour of respondent nos. 4 to 9. Vijendra Singh had also executed a sale-deed of his ¼ share in Plot No. 3538 in favour of petitioner. Virendra Singh had also executed a sale-deed of his ¼ share in favour of the petitioner and another ¼ share in favour of another person. Narendra Singh had also executed a sale-deed in favour of one Ashok Kumar Singh of Mukut Singh in respect of to his ¼ share. On the basis of aforementioned sale-deed respective Vendees came in possession over their respective area purchased by them. Plot No. 3538 stated to be situated adjacent to the main road. Respondent nos. 4 to 9 filed an application before the Consolidation authorities for preparing reference on the basis of final order 02.02.2000 & 26.08.2001 order passed under Section 12 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Act). Plot No. 3538 stated to be situated adjacent to the main road. Respondent nos. 4 to 9 filed an application before the Consolidation authorities for preparing reference on the basis of final order 02.02.2000 & 26.08.2001 order passed under Section 12 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Act). The aforementioned case was registered as case no. 205 of 2002. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 07.02.2002 decided the aforementioned case. Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 21 of U.P.C.H. Act, against the order dated 07.02.2002 passed by the Consolidation Officer, which was registered as appeal no. 327. The aforementioned appeal was heard by the Settlement Consolidation Officer and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the Settlement Consolidation Officer but appeal was dismissed on merit vide order dated 02.07.2010. Against the appeallate order dated 30.06.2010 as well as order of the Consolidation Officer dated 07.02.2002 petitioner filed a Revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was registered as Revision No. 230. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 12.08.2010 dismissed the Revision filed by petitioner. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order passed by Consolidation Officer dated 07.02.2002, order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 30.06.2010 as well as order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12.08.2010. 3. The aforementioned writ petition was heard on 06.12.2010, but the same was ordered to be listed after three weeks. 4. On 25.11.2006, the writ petition was dismissed in absence of learned counsel for the petitioner. Against the order dated 25.11.2006 delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2021 along with Recall Application No. 2 of 2021 were filed on behalf of the petitioner, which were allowed vide order dated 29.07.2022 and writ petition was restored to its original number. The Substitution Application in respect to the sole petitioner was also allowed vide order dated 29.07.2022. 5. Against the order dated 29.07.2022 respondent nos. 4 to 9 filed a Special Leave to Appeal No. 18702 of 2022 before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.11.2022 with the direction that writ petition itself be decided within a period of three months. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Plot No. 3538 is road side plot as such petitioner as well as respondent nos. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Plot No. 3538 is road side plot as such petitioner as well as respondent nos. 4 to 9 are entitled for Chak facing road side plot. He further submitted that the petitioner and respondent nos. 4 to 9 are vendees of the plot in question from the respective owner of the plot in question as such petitioner and respondent nos. 4 to 9 are entitled for the allotment of their Chak facing road side Plot No. 3538. He further submitted that proceeding initiated by respondent nos. 4 to 9 has been decided in exparte and arbitrary manner without considering the case of the petitioner in accordance with the provision of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have been also dismissed in arbitrary manner without considering case set-up by the petitioner in his appeal and revision. He submitted that impugned orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities be set-aside and the matter be remitted back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter a fresh considering the share of the petitioner in the road side Plot No. 3538. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 4 to 9 submitted that all the three Courts have decided the proceeding in accordance with law on the basis of final order passed under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act as such no interference is required in the matter. He further submitted that proceeding initiated by the respondent nos. 4 to 9 was decided in the year 2002, but the appeal was filed by petitioner after two years in the year 2004, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2010 and Revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on 12.08.2010. He further submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2010 was itself dismissed on 25.11.2016, but on the recall application of the petitioner, the order dated 25.11.2016 was recalled and writ petition has been restored to its original number. He submitted that in view of order passed in reference proceeding in the year 2002, no interference is required. He further submitted that petitioner is himself responsible for delaying the proceeding before the Consolidation Authorities as well as before this Court as such petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the matter. He submitted that in view of order passed in reference proceeding in the year 2002, no interference is required. He further submitted that petitioner is himself responsible for delaying the proceeding before the Consolidation Authorities as well as before this Court as such petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the matter. He further submitted that order passed by Consolidation Officer under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act on 02.02.2000 & 26.08.2001 in favour of respondent nos. 4 to 9 can not be challenged by way of amendment application in the instant petition after about 21 years. He submitted that amendment application filed by the petitioner is misconceived and liable to be rejected. He finally submitted that no interference required in the matter against the impugned orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities in the reference proceeding. 8. I have considered argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. There is no dispute about the facts that application/proceeding initiated on the basis of final order passed under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act has been allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 07.02.2002 and appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 30.06.2010. There is also no dispute about the fact that Revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed under the impugned order dated 12.08.2010. There is also no dispute about the facts that no interim order has been granted in the instant petition since 2010 in favour of the petitioner. 10. It is material to mention that on the basis of final order passed under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act the reference proceeding has been decided under the impugned orders, which requires no interference by this Court unless the orders passed under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act are recalled/set-aside/modified in accordance with law. 11. So far as challenge to the orders dated 02.02.2000 & 26.08.2001 passed by Consolidation Officer/Assistant Consolidation Officer under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act for the first time before this Court by way of amendment application filed in the year 2023 can not be entertained. 12. The instant petition arises out of reference proceeding and all the Court (Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director Consolidation) have decided against the petitioner as such no interference is required against the impugned orders. 13. 12. The instant petition arises out of reference proceeding and all the Court (Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director Consolidation) have decided against the petitioner as such no interference is required against the impugned orders. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case no interference is required against the impugned orders passed in reference proceeding under U.P.C.H. Act. 14. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.