Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1481 (ALL)

Narvdeshwar v. State Of UP

2024-05-30

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Mr. Satya Priya Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Amish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 & 5 and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is being heard finally without inviting counter affidavit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that plot no.273 of khata no.393 situated in Village- Fulwariya, Tappa-Khuthan, Pargana- Haweli, Tahsil- Sadar, District- Gorakhpur was recorded in the name of Shyamraji wife of Jagesar as bhumidhar with transferable right. After death of aforementioned Shyamraji, name of her daughter Smt. Rampati was recorded on the basis of Pa.Ka.- 11. In the basic year of Consolidation Officer, name of Rampati was recorded over the plot in question. Rampati was married to Sri Ram Raksha Tiwari. Smt. Rampati Devi expired on 13.10.1996, accordingly, name of her only son Narvedeshwar Tripathi was ordered to be recorded in place of Smt. Rampati Devi vide order dated 6.5.1999 in Case No.602, under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act"). Narvdeshwar Tripathi had executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner nos.2 to 5 (Rajesh Kumar and Others) on 30.7.1999. In the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act, name of petitioner nos.2 to 5 was ordered to be recorded by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 1.11.2018 in respect to the plot in question. The order dated 6.5.1999 was set aside in appeal vide order dated 5.7.1999 and matter was remanded back before Consolidation Officer, Jhungiya for fresh decision. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 9.7.2015 again restored the earlier order dated 6.5.1999. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23.6.2001 in Case No.259, under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act rejected the claim of the petitioner nos.2 to 5. Father of respondent nos.4 & 5 (Laxman Singh) filed an objection under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act in respect to the plot in question for recording his name as co-tenure holder of 3/4th share which was registered as Case No.937 before Consolidation Officer. In the aforementioned case, an application for amendment was filed by the father of respondent nos.4 & 5 claiming exclusive right in the plot in dispute. In the aforementioned case, an application for amendment was filed by the father of respondent nos.4 & 5 claiming exclusive right in the plot in dispute. The aforementioned case was dismissed on 28.1.1994, accordingly, father of respondent nos.4 & 5 have filed a restoration application dated 7.5.1997 to recall the order dated 28.1.1994 passed in the proceeding under Section 9 - A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. During pendency of the aforementioned restoration proceeding a compromise was alleged to be take place between Laxman Singh and Rampati Devi, accordingly, Consolidation Officer, Jhugiya, Gorakhpur passed an order dated 6.6.1997 setting aside the earlier order dated 28.1.1994 and decided the proceeding under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Petitioner no.1 filed a restoration application dated 8.4.2015 against the order dated 6.6.1997 along with the prayer for condonation of delay. Consolidation Officer, Deewan Bazaar, Gorakhpur vide order dated 6.6.2015 set aside the order dated 6.6.1997 and restored the proceeding of Case No.237 to its original number for decision on merit. The aforementioned proceeding under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 14.7.2016 passed by Consolidation Officer, Deewan Bazaar, Gorakhpur. Respondent nos.4 & 5, accordingly, filed a restoration application on 15.6.2019 for recalling the orders dated 6.6.2015 and 14.7.2016 along with the prayer for condonation of delay. Consolidation Officer, Deewan Bazaar, Gorakhpur vide order dated 8.3.2021 passed an order allowing the restoration application in part filed by respondent nos.4 & 5 setting aside the orders dated 6.6.2015 as well as 14.7.2016 and fixed the case for evidence of the parties in respect to the proceeding under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. Against the order dated 8.3.2021, respondent nos.4 & 5 filed an appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, which was heard and dismissed vide order dated 19.5.2022. Against the order dated 19.5.2022 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as 8.3.2021 passed by Consolidation Officer, revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent nos.4 & 5 before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was registered as Revision No.202254053100001442 and another Revision No.202254053100002002 was filed against the order dated 9.7.2015 in Case No.158, under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act. The aforementioned revisions have been decided under the impugned order dated 4.1.2024 setting aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 19.5.2022, order of the Consolidation Officer, Jhugiya, Gorakhpur dated 9.7.2015 as well as order of the Consolidation Officer, Deewan Bazaar, Gorakhpur dated 8.3.2021 and the case has been remanded back before Consolidation Officer, Deewan Bazaar, Gorakhpur to decide the restoration application filed against the order dated 6.6.2015 also afresh within a period of four months, hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following relief: "issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 4.1.2024 passed by respondent no.2/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur in Revision No.1442 / 2022 and Computerized Case No.202254053100001442 (Ajay Singh and Others vs. Narvdeshwar and others) (Annexure No.1) under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Consolidation Officer, Deewan Bazaar, vide order dated 8.3.2021 decided the matter setting aside the order dated 14.7.2016 and restored the proceeding for fresh decision of the cases under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act in accordance with law. He further submitted that the appeal filed by respondent nos.4 & 5 against the order dated 8.3.2021 was rightly dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 19.5.2022. He further submitted that two revisions filed by the contesting respondent against the order passed under Section-9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act & Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act have been allowed in arbitrary manner setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer, Jhungiya dated 9.7.2015 and Consolidation Officer, Deewan Bazar dated 8.3.2021 as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 19.5.2022. He also submitted that the impugned revisional order dated 4.1.2024 be set aside and the order of Consolidation Officer dated 8.3.2021 be maintained so that the objection under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act be heard on merit after opportunity to lead evidence to both parties. 5. On the other hand, Mr. He also submitted that the impugned revisional order dated 4.1.2024 be set aside and the order of Consolidation Officer dated 8.3.2021 be maintained so that the objection under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act be heard on merit after opportunity to lead evidence to both parties. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Amish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 & 5 submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded the finding of fact in support of the revisional order, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation and remitted the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter in accordance with law, which requires no interference by this Court. 6. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that the title objection under Section 9 - A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has not been decided at any point of time on merit after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence. There is also no dispute about the fact that the Consolidation Officer under the order dated 18.3.2021 has restored the proceeding under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act for fresh decision in accordance with law. There is also no dispute about the fact that appeal filed by contesting respondents has been dismissed but revision has been allowed under the impugned order. 8. So far as title objection under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act filed by father of respondent nos.4 & 5 is concern, the same was decided vide order dated 6.6.1997 on the basis of compromise alleged to take place between the parties but on the restoration application of petitioner no.1, the order dated 6.6.1997 has been set aside, as such, interest of justice requires that the title objection under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act be decided on merit rather to maintain the order dated 6.6.1997 passed on the basis of alleged compromise. The Consolidation Officer while considering the restoration application dated 15.6.2019 filed by respondent nos.4 & 5 against the order dated 6.6.1997 & 14.7.2016 has recorded the finding of fact that order dated 6.6.1997 passed on the basis of alleged compromise is illegal, as such, title objection under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act filed by predecessor of respondent nos.4 & 5 requires adjudication on merit, as such, there was no occasion to interfere with the order passed by Consolidation Officer in the revisional exercise of jurisdiction by Deputy Director of Consolidation in order to maintain the order dated 6.6.1997 passed on the basis of alleged compromise. 9. So far as exercise of revisional jurisdiction against the order dated 9.7.2015 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Jhungiya in Case No.158, under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act is concern since as there is no challenge to the order passed in Revision No.202254053100002002 as well as contesting respondent nos.4 & 5 are claiming that they have not been afforded opportunity of hearing after remand order passed in appeal against the order dated 6.5.1999 passed under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act, accordingly, impugned revisional order dated 4.1.2024 passed by respondent no.2 in Revision No.202254053100001442 only is liable to be set aside. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 4.1.2024 passed by respondent no.2 in Revision No.202254053100001442 is set aside. 11. The writ petition stands allowed and the order passed by Cosolidation Officer dated 8.3.2021 is affirmed. The Consolidation Officer, Deewan Bazar, Gorakhpur is directed to decide the proceeding (Laxman Singh vs. Rampati), under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act in pursuance of the order dated 8.3.2021 afresh on merit after framing issues and giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence along with proceeding (Sanjay vs. Mst. Rajpati), under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act in pursuance of impugned revisional order dated 4.1.2024 passed in Revision No.202254053100002002 on merit, expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before respondent no.3/ Consolidation Officer, Deewan, Bazar, Gorakhpur. It is made clear that both the proceeding shall be decided by respondent no.3/ Consolidation Officer, Deewan, Bazar, Gorakhpur after summoning the record of the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act from the Court of Consolidation Officer, Jhungiya, Gorakhpur subject to the application filed by either of the parties.