Allahabad High Court
Harihar Singh & Others vs Addl.Director Consolidation Lucknow & ... on 18 December, 2019
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 7 Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 4277 of 1983 Petitioner :- Harihar Singh & Others Respondent :- Addl.Director Consolidation Lucknow & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.S Sahai,Madhav Srivastava,U.S. Sahai,Uma Shankar Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,A.R Sharma,Km. V. Mohini,Nirmal Tiwari,Vimnal Kr. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
(C.M.A. No.138983/19- Recall.) This is an application for recall of order 13.11.2019.
Heard Cause shown recall of order is satisfactory. The applications is allowed. Order dated 13.11.2019 is recalled. Writ petition is restored to its original number.
Learned Counsel for the parties have agreed to argue out the matter today itself, as such it is heard finally.
Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nirmal Tiwari, learned counsel for the contesting opposite party.
During consolidation operations in the Basic Year Khatauni it is the admitted case of the parties that Sant Singh, son of Drig Vijay Singh was recorded as tenure holder in respect of the Khata No. 438. A dispute was raised at the behest of his three brothers who claimed co-tenancy therein and accordingly the matter went up to the Consolidation Officer under section 9-A(2) of the Act 1952. The Consolidation Officer relying upon the statement of Sant Singh that the land in dispute was ancestral, allowed the objections of the three brothers who are the petitioners, herein vide his judgement dated 03.05.1979. A belated appeal was filed by Sant Singh before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was dismissed on the ground of limitation. This led to filing of a revision under section 48 of the Act 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation opined that while it was true that the delay was not explained to the satisfaction of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, it was equally true that objections of the three brothers namely Harihar Singh, Rampal Singh and Chhota Singh did not include any claim in respect of Gata No. 542, but, this aspect of the matter was ignored by the Consolidation Officer and he allowed the claim in respect of all the Gatas of Khata No. 438. In this view of the matter the Deputy Director of Consolidation keeping the ends of substantial justice in mind modified the order of the Consolidation Officer only to the extent that it would not apply in respect of Gata No. 542, as there was no claim of the other three brothers in respect thereof.
On being confronted on the earlier dates Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner had offered to file a copy of objections to demonstrate that all the Gatas comprising Khata No. 438 were in dispute and the claim of the petitioners was in respect of the Gatas, however, in spite of sufficient time copy of the objections have not been filed as they are not available. The Court finds from the order of Consolidation Officer a recital therein attributable to Sant Singh that partition had taken place earlier and some of the Gatas were self acquired and were not part of the joint holding, though it is not very clear as to which Gata is being referred, but the Court also finds that in the order of the Consolidation Officer separate Gatas have not been mentioned. Only Khata No. 438 has been mentioned and the dispute has been decided accordingly, however, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, as is borne out from the order passed by him, has perused the relevant records in this regard and thereafter has recorded a finding that the claim did not relate to Gata No. 542, but it related to the other Gatas and, therefore, after recording the finding, has modified the order of the Consolidation Officer.
Now the only way the petitioners could succeed before this Court was by showing that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had erred in his order and the factual position based on the objections filed by the petitioners or their predecessors in interest was otherwise, i.e. Gata No. 542 was also included in the claim/objections which were filed. Not having been able to do so, the Court finds itself handicapped in interfering in the matter, as, substantial justice has been done by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, there is no cause for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For this reason the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, is hereby discharged. Consequences shall follow accordingly.
.
(Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 18.12.2019 A.Nigam