Allahabad High Court
Smt. Indubala vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 5 January, 2024
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:2133 Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4170 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Indubala Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 14.09.2023 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) in Revision No.2097/2022-23 (Smt. Indubala vs. Dharamveer and others), under Section 48 (1) U.P.C.H. Act order dated 20.06.2023 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) in Appeal No.475 (Indubala vs. Gaon Sabha and others), under Section 21 (2) U.P.C.H. Act and order dated 26.12.2022 passed by respondent no.4 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) respectively."
3. The instant writ petition is arising out of impleadment application moved on behalf of present petitioner in proceeding under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (In brevity U.P.C.H. Act). Dharamveer (respondent no.6) has filed an objection under Section 21 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act to record Plot No.678 area 0.004 hectare as a Chak Marg in place of Nali. The aforesaid objection was registered as Case No.33. During pendency of the aforesaid case, present petitioner has moved an impleadment application. Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 26.12.2022, has rejected the impleadment application which was affirmed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation by their orders dated 20.06.2023 and 14.09.2023 respectively. Record reveals that in the meantime Case No.33 under Section 21 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act has been finally allowed by order dated 11.09.2023 passed by Consolidation Officer.
4. In view of the final order dated 11.09.2023 passed in proceeding under Section 21 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act, no fruitful purpose would be served to entertain the instant writ petition arising out of impleadment application inasmuch as original proceeding wherein impleadment application had been filed is finally decided. However, conversely, order dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure No.15) reveals that Mr. Amarjeet Singh (son of the present petitioner) has already got an opportunity to contest the matter and defend his case. The contentions raised on behalf of Amarjeet Singh has appropriately been entertained and considered by the Consolidation Officer in its order dated 11.09.2023, therefore, in the light of the observation made by Consolidation Officer in order dated 11.09.2023, it cannot be inferred that the claim/defense of the present petitioner was unrepresented before the Consolidation Officer despite the fact that his impleadment application was rejected. She was substantially represented through his son, who appeared before the court concerned and put his defense. It also reflects from the record that Amarjeet Singh along with present petitioner has preferred a revision being revision No.2222 of 2022-23, under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act assailing the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by Consolidation Officer in Case No.33 under Section 21 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act. The aforesaid revision is still pending consideration before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur.
5. In this conspectus, as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to entertain the instant writ petition and interfere in the orders passed by all the three consolidation courts rejecting the impleadment application moved by the petition.
6. Resultantly, the instant writ petition being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.1.2024 Jitendra