Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2431 (ALL)

Purshottam v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation

2024-11-28

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Ram Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shree Prakash Giri, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the revision under section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") was filed by the father of petitioners on 28.5.2022 before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision arises out of proceeding under Section 9 of U.P.C.H. Act, which was registered as Revision No.63 of 2022. Respondent nos.3 to 6 were impleaded as opposite party in the aforementioned revision. During pendency of the aforementioned revision, an application dated 30.11.2023 for amendment of pleading made in the memo of revision was filed on behalf of the petitioners. Against the aforementioned amendment application, an objection was filed by the contesting respondents on 30.6.2024 with the prayer that amendment application cannot be allowed as proceedings are pending since 1997 and the amendment cannot be allowed at the revisional stage. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 27.6.2024 rejected the amendment application filed by the petitioners, hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following reliefs: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.6.2024 passed by respondent no.1 in Revision No.R.S.T.1196 of 2022 (Nanka and others vs. Chhedi Lal Giri and Others) under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 (contained as Annexure No.10 to the writ petition). ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to implement the impugned order dated 27.6.2024 in revenue record, nor to dispossess the petitioner from the land in dispute." 4. This Court vide order dated 16.10.2024 entertained the matter and granted interim order staying the proceeding of the revision. 5. In pursuance of the order dated 16.10.2024, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 to 6 has filed counter affidavit along with stay vacation application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amendment application in the pending revision under section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act has been filed clarifying his pleading in the revision. 5. In pursuance of the order dated 16.10.2024, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 to 6 has filed counter affidavit along with stay vacation application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amendment application in the pending revision under section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act has been filed clarifying his pleading in the revision. He further submitted that the amendment application which was filed by the petitioners does not change the nature of the proceedings in any manner rather petitioners are clarifying the pleading made in the revision, as such, the amendment application cannot be rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He further placed the amendment application filed on behalf of the petitioners in order to demonstrate that the amendment application is not going to change the nature of the dispute in any manner, as such, amendment application cannot be rejected. He further submitted that the amendment application filed by the petitioners in the pending revision be allowed and revision be decided in accordance with law expeditiously. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Shree Prakash Giri, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 6 submitted that the dispute under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act initiated at the instance of the petitioners' father has been decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29.11.2016 and order was ultimately maintained in appeal, as such, the amendment application filed by the petitioners in revision cannot be allowed. He further submitted that in view of the controversy involved in the matter allowing of amendment application will cause injury to the interest of the contesting respondent. He next submitted that the amendment application cannot be allowed at the hearing stage. He placed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the averment made in the amendment application in order to demonstrate that the amendment application cannot be allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He further submitted that under the impugned order, the amendment application filed by the petitioners has been rightly rejected and no interference is required against the impugned order. 8. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. He further submitted that under the impugned order, the amendment application filed by the petitioners has been rightly rejected and no interference is required against the impugned order. 8. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. There is no dispute about the facts that revision filed by the father of the petitioners under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the order passed under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act & Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act is pending before Deputy Director of Consolidation. There is also no dispute about the fact that the amendment application dated 30.11.2023 filed on behalf of petitioners in their revision, has been rejected under impugned order dated 27.6.2024. 10. Perusal of the amendment application filed by the petitioners demonstrate that the petitioners are clarifying their pleading made in the revision, as such, there is no difficulty in allowing the amendment application filed by the petitioners in pending revision. 11. It is also material that objection under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act filed at the instance of petitioners' father was allowed and petitioners' appeal has been dismissed, as such, allowing the amendment application in the revision filed at the instance of petitioners' father will not change the relief claimed in the objection under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act in any manner rather petitioners are clarifying his pleading of revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. 12. The scope of revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act has been made wider by way of Explanation-3 added in Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, as such, allowing of amendment application is in accordance with law. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, the impugned order dated 27.6.2024 passed by respondent no.1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the petitioners' amendment application is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 14. The application for amendment dated 30.11.2023 filed by petitioners is allowed. Petitioners shall incorporate the amendment in his memo of revision accordingly. 15. 14. The application for amendment dated 30.11.2023 filed by petitioners is allowed. Petitioners shall incorporate the amendment in his memo of revision accordingly. 15. The writ petition stands allowed and Respondent no.1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the aforementioned pending revision No.63 of 2022 in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before respondent no.1.