Allahabad High Court
Ayodhya Prasad Gupta vs D.D.C. Ambedkar Nagar And Ors. on 26 February, 2020
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 25 Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 4666 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ayodhya Prasad Gupta Respondent :- D.D.C. Ambedkar Nagar And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Tiwari,Ajay Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Yogesh Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4- the revisionist and Sri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gaon Sabha.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the respondent no.1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ambedar Nagar, in Revision No.448:Vinod Kumar Singh Vs. Ayodhya Prasad Gupta.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has read out the order dated 24.12.2019 and has pointed out that no findings therein have been given with regard as to how the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) are erroneous for him to exercise his jurisdiction in Revision.
4. This Court has also perused the order impugned. It found that in the first paragraph of the order, a mention is made of the two Revisions been filed by the Vinod Kumar Singh, one relating to the petitioner and other one relating to Bhanu Pratap Singh. The second paragraph of the said order states that since both the Revisions relate to the same issue, they were directed to be clubbed together by order dated 29.12.2018. Further, the submissions of respondent no.4 has been recorded as to how he wishes that plot no.222 be given to him as his house situated thereon. Thereafter, the facts of other Revision also entertained by the same order i.e. Revision No.459 has been mentioned.
After mentioning the facts of the Revisions, the arguments of the petitioner herein/ the respondents in the Revision, have been noted in three lines which are as follows:-
"vipakshigan ki or se prastut kiye gaye tarko me kaha gaya hai ki unke chak mool bhumi ke aalok me uchit roop se pradisht hain, jinhe yathavat rakha jae. Nigraniyan niradhar hain jise nirast kiya jae."
5. The Revisional court has thereafter condoned the delay by mentioning in the next paragraph the reasons for condoning the delay and then the findings have been recorded on the basis of some on spot inspection done and on perusal of the village map. No finding has been recorded with regard as to how the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), which are concurrent findings of the fact, are perverse leading to a valid exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
6. The order impugned dated 24.12.2019 being un-reasoned and non-speaking is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ambedkar Nagar, to consider afresh and give specific finding with regard to the perversity or illegality, if any, in the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and then pass a reasoned and speaking order on the revision, after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned.
7. Since the lower court record may have been sent back, the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall summon the lower court record and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced.
8. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.2.2020 Rahul