Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1419 (ALL)

Om Prakash v. State of U. P.

2024-05-24

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. Intervenor Application dated 16.04.2024 filed on behalf of Bharat Bhusan is taken on record. Order on Misc. Intervenor Application dated 16.04.2024 1. Office is directed to allot number to the instant application. 2. Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Pandey holding brief of Mr. Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for Intervenor/Bharat Bhusan, learned counsel for writ petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is owner of plot No. 4994 area 2.71 hectare and applicant has also filed a revision No. 1009 of 2024 against the appellate order dated 25.10.1997 which is pending before deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia as such applicant be impleaded in the instant petition. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the instant application is disposed of with observation that applicant can press his pending revision in accordance with law. Order on Writ Petition 1. Heard Mr. Ganesh Pandey holding brief of Mr. Rakesh Singh Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Satish Kumar Pandey holding the brief of Mr. Rahul Sahai, who has filed intervenor application on behalf of Bharat Bhushan, Mr. Ashish Chandra Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla learned counsel for respondent-Gaon Sabha. 2. Brief facts of the case are that objections under section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Act) were filed by State against the Basic Year Entry, which were registered as Case Nos. 1465, 3896, 3902. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 13.07.1994 decided the title objection. Against order dated 13.07.1994 passed by Consolidation Officer, an Appeal under section 11(1) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 along with father of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 which was registered as appeal No. 4482. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the aforementioned appeal vide order dated 25.10.1997 setting aside the order dated 13.07.1994 and directed that plot in question be recorded as recorded in basic year. An application for correction was filed against appellate order dated 25.10.1997 which was allowed vide order dated 2.7.1998. Against the order dated 25.10.1997 and 2.7.1998 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, highly time barred Revision was filed by the State on 20.12.2023 impleading the petitioners as opposite party. An application for correction was filed against appellate order dated 25.10.1997 which was allowed vide order dated 2.7.1998. Against the order dated 25.10.1997 and 2.7.1998 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, highly time barred Revision was filed by the State on 20.12.2023 impleading the petitioners as opposite party. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 6.1.2024 issued notice to the opposite parties and stayed the operation of the order dated 25.10.1997 and 2.7.1998 hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 6.1.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 1007. 3. This Court vide order dated 16.5.2024 directed the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instruction as to whether any order for condonation of delay in filing the revison has been passed or not. 4. In pursuance of the order dated 16.5.2024, no instruction has been received by learned Standing Counsel as such with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being heard finally without inviting counter affidavit. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that revision filed by State was highly time barred as such unless the delay in filing the revision is condoned, no interim order can be granted in the highly time barred revision. He submitted that in revision which was filed after 25 years, the interim order staying the operation of the order dated 25.10.1997 and 02.7.1998 has been passed without condonation of delay of 25 years as well as without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He further submitted that part of the impugned order dated 06.01.2024 by which the operation of impugned order dated 25.10.1997 and 2.7.1998 has been stayed, be set aside and proper direction be issued to the Revisional Court to decide the revision in accordance with law. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Chandra Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prashad Shukla, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that land in dispute is public utility land as such in order to protect the public utility land, interim order has been passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation as such no interference is required in the matter. They further submitted that orders impugned in revision were passed ex-parte against the State/Sabha, as such the orders have been rightly stayed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revison. They further submitted that orders impugned in revision were passed ex-parte against the State/Sabha, as such the orders have been rightly stayed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revison. They submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order as Deputy Director of Consolidation under the impugned order dated 06.01.2024 has stayed the operation of the appellate orders, issued notice to the opposite party and fixed the matter for disposal. 7. I have considered argument advanced by learned Standing Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by State was time barred by 25 years and the Revisional Court without condoning the delay in filing the revision has granted interim order staying operation of the appellate orders which were passed about 25 years before. 9. It is as well settled that in the time barred proceeding unless delay is condoned, no interim order can be granted. 10. In the instant matter the revision was highly time barred as such unless the delay in filing the revision is condoned by specific order, no interim order can be granted by the Revisional Court. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the part of the impugned order dated 6.1.2024 by which operation of the order dated 25.10.1997 and 2.7.1998 has been stayed, is hereby set aside and writ petition is allowed in part. The Deputy Director of Consolidation/respondent No. 3 is directed to pass specific order on delay condonation matter first and thereafter proceed with the revision in accordance with law as well as decide the revision after proper notice and opportunity of hearing to both the parties expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the revision.