Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 469 (ALL)

Raj Deo v. Ram Samujh

2025-03-10

JASPREET SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State and Shri U.S.Sahai learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.1. 2. Under challenge is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25.5.1982 whereby the revision preferred by the private respondent was allowed as a consequence the order dated 14.11.1980 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer of Consolidation as well as the order dated 1.4.1981 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been rejected and the disputed property in question has been directed to be recorded exclusively in the name of Ram Samujh. Since the said revision was allowed ex parte, the petitioner on 26.5.1982 moved an application for recall which was opposed by the private respondent and the Deputy Director of Consolidation after its due consideration, by means of the order dated 14.10.1982 dismissed the recall application. 3. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, that the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the two orders which are 14.10.1982 whereby the recall was rejected as well as order dated 25.5.1982 whereby the revision of the private respondent was allowed. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause in participating in the revision and as soon as the revision was decided on 25.5.1982, ex parte against the petitioner, the application for recall was moved immediately on 26.5.1982. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also filed his affidavit that on account of sudden illness of his counsel, he could not be present in the court at the time of hearing of the revision and in the aforesaid circumstances, the revision came to be allowed ex parte and in such circumstances, it is urged that the petitioner should not have been penalised for any inaction on the part of his counsel and thus for this reason, the revisional court has taken a pedantic view in rejecting the application for recall. 5. 5. It is further urged that even otherwise, on the merits of the matter, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not sustainable inasmuch as clear findings were recorded by the Consolidation Officer as well as by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which have not been taken note and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has interfered with the orders setting aside the same and granting complete exclusive rights to respondent no.1 which on the face of the record, could not be sustained and in the aforesaid circumstances, where the petitioner has got a right on merits, at least an opportunity ought to have been granted to put up his case and any delay for inconvenience, could always be compensated in terms of cost but this aspect of the matter has not been considered resulting in sheer miscarriage of justice. 6. Shri U.S.Sahai, learned counsel for the private respondent submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken note of the conduct of the petitioner and it has been noticed that since the revision became due for hearing on merits w.e.f. 5.10.1981 till 25.5.1982, several dates were fixed but the petitioner did not cooperate. It is only once the matter was decided on merits that the petitioner moved the application for recall and that too for the purposes of delaying the matter. His conduct was not found worthy of condoning the absence and in such circumstances, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was right in rejecting the application for recall. Shri Sahai has further urged that even if the case of the petitioner is taken on merits, it would indicate that he was not the son of Chamru. He has no right in the property and this finding has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and in such circumstances, there would be no gainful purpose in setting aside the ex parte order as there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 8. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has provided the copies of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation for perusal of the court and the same are taken on record. 9. Having considered the application and the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14.10.1982 whereby the application for recall was rejected, this Court finds that the Deputy Director of Consolidation was influenced by the previous conduct of the petitioner, however, there is no finding to the effect that on the given date i.e. 25.5.1982 whether the counsel for the petitioner was unwell or he was prevented by sufficient cause. Once the revision was not heard on the earlier occasion, there is only a vague reference that several dates were fixed but it does not indicate that the dates were the consequence of adjournments or non cooperation by the petitioner. There is no finding that the dates which were fixed between 5.10.1981 till 25.5.1982, what was the cause of the case being deferred. Mere reference has been given to a fact that several opportunities were granted. Now those several opportunities could be for n number of reasons and may or may not have been attributable to the conduct of the petitioner. Thus, either it should have been clearly mentioned but in absence of clear material, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner was the cause of delay. Thus, this Court is satisfied that the court had taken pedantic view in rejecting the application for recall especially when the issue of title of the parties was involved and it was moved the very next day. 10. In the aforesaid, this Court finds that end of justice can be met by setting aside the order dated 14.10.1982 on payment of cost by the petitioner to the private respondent a sum of Rs.15,000/- to be paid within a period of ten days from today. 11. 10. In the aforesaid, this Court finds that end of justice can be met by setting aside the order dated 14.10.1982 on payment of cost by the petitioner to the private respondent a sum of Rs.15,000/- to be paid within a period of ten days from today. 11. Coming to the merits of the mater, if the order impugned is seen in context with the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, this Court finds that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is purely based on surmises and conjectures. It has not taken note of the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. From the perusal of the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, it would indicate that the statements of the parties who were examined as witnesses, have been considered. Discrepancies in the revenue record/ Khatauni have also been taken note of to indicate that in case if Chamru had expired so also his other two sons, then there was no possibility of the name of the alleged father of the petitioner Bishambhar to have been recorded in subsequent years. Insofar as the issue regarding whether Bishambhar was the son of Chamru has also not been taken note of in its correct perspective. 12. This Court after perusing the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation finds that in case if the Deputy Director of Consolidation had to differ with the said findings, at least he should have adverted to the material available before him and the reasons which were recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation which were based on the statements and the revenue entries, they should have been adverted too and the mistake/error therein or in the reasonings of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation should have been taken note of and thereafter it could have reversed the findings by giving his own independent reasons. 13. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order has referred to certain dates of death of Bishambhar, Chamru and Algo but what was the basis of those dates and how he arrived at such a conclusion holding that Bishambhar was not the son of Chamru is also not borne out from the record. 13. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order has referred to certain dates of death of Bishambhar, Chamru and Algo but what was the basis of those dates and how he arrived at such a conclusion holding that Bishambhar was not the son of Chamru is also not borne out from the record. This is in contradiction to the material available and noticed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 14. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained. The Deputy Director of Consolidation being the final court of law and facts ought to have been most sensitive in exercise of its jurisdiction in considering the evidence and the material on record but the same has not been done. For the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25.5.1982 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The revision shall stand restored on the board of the Deputy Director of Consolidation concerned where the parties shall appear on 24.3.2025. 15. Since the matter relates to the year 1982, it is expected that the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall on the basis of the material available on record and without permitting the parties to lead any fresh evidence, shall reconsider the same and give its own findings after taking note of the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties. 16. It is clarified that the court has not expressed its opinion on merits and any observation made is only to test the veracity of the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 17. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.