Uttarakhand High Court
Ms Rama Vision Limited vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 December, 2017
Author: Sharad Kumar Sharma
Bench: Sharad Kumar Sharma
WPMS No. 3207 of 2017 Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.C. Arya, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
The short controversy which has been agitated by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that he claims himself to be an applicant in the proceedings under Section 9- A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, wherein, he claims that the land, in question, is shown to be in his possession, by virtue of sale deed dated 31st August, 1989 and on 1st September, 1989. Though, the objection preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the order dated 22nd November, 1996, he has preferred an appeal which was registered as Appeal No. 245 under Section 11 (1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, which has been decided by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, by the order dated 9th August, 2007. As a consequence to it, the delay which has chanced in preferring the appeal was condoned, the appeal was allowed, the Consolidation Officer's order rejecting his objection under Section 9-A(2) was set aside and the area which he claimed was short than the area what he purchased was rectified.
Being aggrieved against the said order, the State has preferred a revision alongwith the delay condonation application in which apparently, there has been a delay of two years in preferring the same.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court of Deputy Director Consolidation, who is ceased with the revision, is pressing upon the petitioner for a joint disposal of Section 5 application as well as the revision itself. For seeking an independent adjudication of Section 5 Application, the petitioner has filed an application before the Deputy Director Consolidation praying for that since until and unless, application under Section 5 as preferred by the respondent with the revision is not decided independently, as a matter of fact, there is no revision existing in the eyes of law. What he contends is that the application under Section 5 may be decided first independently before revision is decided.
Apparently, the preposition may seem to be appropriate and legally tenable but the disposal of both the proceedings could be simultaneously also made on the same day though by an independent orders.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Deputy Director Consolidation to decide the Section 5 application by separate order independently or while deciding independently alongwith the revision itself.
Subject to the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) Dated 18.12.2017 Shiv