Allahabad High Court
Ram Sagar And Others vs Deputy Director Consolidation, ... on 17 August, 2022
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 451 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ram Sagar And Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Consolidation, Barabanki And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajai Kumar Srivastava,Dinesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Naveen Chandra Upadhyay Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri N.C. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 9.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.
Instant petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari and to quash and set aside order dated 23.5.2022 & 15.5.2018 has passed by the Settlement officer & Deputy Director, Consolidation District Barabanki contained as contained as Annexure No. 4 to 5 respectively.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to not disturb and disposes the petitioners from land in question i.e. Khata No. 102 (New No. 172)
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction to consolidation officer to correct and make entries on the basis of parentage of respective tenure holder of Khatauni no. 103 & 172 and as well as land in dispute.
(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction to consolidation officer to decide the Appeal No.288/2018 ( computerized number) which has been moved under section 11(1) U.P.C.H.Act correct the entries by making issue on Case no.572 decided on 23.11.1961 and name of the paranatge of the Sahebdeen and Makka.
(v) Issue any other writ, order or direction in any other nature which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
(vi) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very out set confines his prayer to the validity of the orders dated 23.5.2022 and 15.5.2018.
The case set forth by the petitioners is that initially an order dated 08.08.1995, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the petition, was passed by the Consolidation Officer. Upon a challenge being raised to the said order by way of Appeal No.923/2419, the appellate Court vide order dated 06.09.2008, a copy of which is Annexure-13 to the petition, set-aside the order dated 08.08.1995 and remanded the matter to the concerned Court i.e. the Consolidation Officer for being decided a fresh after hearing all the parties. In the meanwhile, a reference was filed by the private respondents under Section 48(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 contending that the order dated 08.08.1995 has not been complied with in a correct manner. A report was called for by the reference court which was submitted on 23.04.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the petition, which indicated about the endorsement of the order dated 08.08.1995 passed by the Consolidation Officer in the land records. The said report has been accepted ex-parte while passing the impugned order dated 15.05.2018 and it was directed that the said report should be incorporated in the land records. The petitioners being aggrieved filed an application for recall which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 23.05.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition. Being aggrieved, instant petition has been filed.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 08.08.1995 had already been set-aside by the appellate Court vide order dated 06.09.2008 and the matter is still sub judice before the Consolidation Officer and consequently there was no occasion for the private respondents to have filed an application for incorporation of the order dated 08.08.1995 which was no longer in existence. The Competent Authority also called for a report and even the report talks about the order dated 08.08.1995 not having been implemented and the report has been accepted ex-parte without hearing the parties aggrieved and the report has been directed to be incorporated in the records. The application for recall filed by the petitioners indicating all the aforesaid points has also not been appreciated and the said application has been rejected. It is contended that once the order dated 08.08.1995 is no longer in existence as such there would not be any occasion for incorporation of the said order in the land records and as such the impugned orders, which have been passed without considering the aforesaid facts, merit to be set-aside on this ground alone.
On the other hand, the aforesaid factual controversy is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the private respondents. However, it is contended that as the Consolidation Officer is already seized of the matter in terms of the order passed by the appellate court dated 06.09.2008 since last almost 14 years as such it would be in the fitness of things that the Consolidation Officer be directed to decide the matter in dispute within a specified time.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, what is apparent is that admittedly the order dated 08.08.1995 had been set-aside by the appellate court vide judgment and order dated 06.09.2008. The application was filed by the private respondents indicating that the order dated 08.08.1995 has not been correctly indicated in the land records upon which a report was called for by the reference court and even the report, which was submitted on 23.04.2018, indicated about non-incorporation of the order dated 08.08.1995. The report has been accepted ex-parte and the recall application filed by the petitioners has also been rejected. What the authorities have failed to appreciate is that the order dated 08.08.1995 is no longer in existence having been set-aside by the appellate court vide order dated 06.09.2008 and accordingly when the order dated 08.08.1995 is itself no longer in existence there would not be any occasion for the order dated 08.08.1995 to be incorporated in the land records. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the revisional court while passing the impugned order dated 15.05.2018 as well as while rejecting the recall application filed by the petitioners.
Considering the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 23.05.2022 and 15.05.2018, copies of which are Annexures 4 and 5 to the petition, are set-aside. As in terms of the order of the appellate court dated 06.09.2008 the Consolidation Officer is seized with the matter since last about 14 years as such the Consolidation Officer is directed to expedite the proceedings and finalize the same in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order provided there is no legal impediment.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.8.2022 A. Katiyar