Allahabad High Court
Sri Ram Yadav And 6 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Mau ... on 4 August, 2021
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 726 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sri Ram Yadav And 6 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Mau And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Yadav,Shivam Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramakant Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ramakant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, learned Standing Counsel who represent respondent nos.1 and 2 and perused the record.
By way of present writ petition petitioner has invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, beseeching writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 21.01.2021, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation(respondent no.1) and order dated 07.03.2011, passed by Consolidation Officer (respondent no.2).
Present writ petition is arising out of proceeding under section 9A(2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1954(in brevity UPCH Act). Several objections have been filed by different set of persons with respect to the land in question which are clubbed together for the purpose of deciding the right and title of the parties.
Grievance of petitioners is that Consolidation Officer has illegally passed order dated 07.03.2011 condoning the delay in filing the objection on behalf of respondent no.3 and has tagged record of several cases together i.e. Case Nos.1737 to 1766.
Facts giving rise to the present writ petition is that present petitioners are claiming their right and title over the property in question on the basis of sale deed executed by recorded tenure holder. They have got their name mutated over the revenue record, on the basis of said sale deed. Subsequently, an objection under section 9A(2) has been filed by respondent no.3, claiming their right and titled over the plots in question. Several other objections were also filed under section 9A(2) of UPCH Act, which were registered as Case Nos.1737 to 1766. Plots of the present petitioners are also involved in the aforesaid cases. Consolidation Officer, vide its order dated 07.03.2011, has condoned the delay in filing the objection under section 9A(2) of UPCH Act on behalf of respondent no.3 and has also added a rider to club all the cases together i.e. Case Nos.1737 to 1766.
Feeling aggrieved, against the order dated 07.03.2011, present petitioner has preferred revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, who has dismissed the revision vide impugned order dated 21.01.2021, on the ground that nothing has been decided finally in the present matter, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that Consolidation Officer has illegally allowed the delay condonation application filed on behalf of respondent no.3 without considering the merits of delay condonation application. He has also submits that there is no justification in clubbing all other cases i.e. Case No.1737 to 1766 with the case of petitioners, which are filed with respect to different plots.
Per contra learned counsel for respondent no.3 contended that Consolidation Officer has rightly condone the delay in filing objection under Section 9A(2) of the UPCH Act, filed on behalf of the respondent no.3. He has further contended that most of the plots are common in all the cases, therefore, Consolidation Officer has rightly clubbed all the cases together and decided to hear all the matter simultaneously.
Perused the record on board and considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties. A very limited question involved in the present writ petition qua condonation of delay and hearing all the cases relating to the property in question after clubbing them together.
It appears that with respect to some of the plots in question, which are involved in the present matter, both the parties are claiming their right and title. Respondent no.3 has filed an objection under Section 9A(2) of UPCH Act with the prayer to condone the delay.
After consideration of previous litigations with respect to the property in question, which is commonly claimed by both the parties, Consolidation Officer has condoned the delay in filing objection under Section 9A(2) of UPCH Act. It is further evident that in cases i.e. Case Nos.1737 to 1766, several plots numbers are common wherein both the parties are claiming their right and title, to the extent of their respective share. Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly passed the impugned order dated 21.01.2021, dismissing the revision, taking one of the ground of maintainability, with an observation that nothing has been decided finally between the parties and they have still an opportunity to contest the case before Consolidation Officer.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality, perversity or error in the order passed by Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I do not find any justification to interfere in the orders passed by respondent nos.1 and 2. Opportunity is still open to the parties to get their right and title decided before Consolidation Officer where the lis is still pending.
Present writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Oral prayer has been made by counsel for the petitioners for direction to the Consolidation Officer for early disposal of the cases which are pending in his court.
Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the prayer as made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
Accordingly, Consolidation Officer is hereby directed to decide the cases pending before him, between the parties, expeditiously, preferably, within the period of six months from the date of in receipt of copy of this order.
It is expected that it should be decided by reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned without granting unnecessary adjournments.
The petitioner shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad supported by an affidavit, which shall be verified by the concerned authority from the website of the High Court, Allahabad.
Order Date :- 4.8.2021 VKG