Allahabad High Court
Ram Bahadur And Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 3 June, 2022
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 20 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 361 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ram Bahadur And Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Ehtesham Khan Counsel for Respondent :- Ankit Pande,C.S.C.,Chhote Lal Yadav,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 9 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.10, whereas Shri Chhote Lal Yadav, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.5. Shri Ankit Pande, learned counsel has put in appearance and has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the private-respondents No.2 to 4, 6 and 7.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that inadvertently one of the party namely Smt. Lakhraji has not been made as a party. He orally prays that he may be permitted to implead Smt. Lakhraji as respondent No.11 in the instant petition.The permission is granted. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall implead Smt. Lakhraji as party and necessary amendment shall be carried out during the course of the day.
Dr. R.S. Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ankit Pande, learned counsel appearing for the private-respondents No.2 to 4, 6 and 7 submits that they have instructions to appear on behalf of Smt. Lakhraji as well since she is the mother of the private-respondents No.2 to 4, 6 and 7.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had filed their objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 before the Consolidation Officer, which came to be decided in favour of the petitioners on 20.12.2021. The private-respondents No.2 to 7 and 11 had preferred an appeal under Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 against the order dated 20.12.2021 which is pending, however, there is no interim order in the said appeal.
In furtherance of the fact that there is no interim order in appeal, the petitioners moved an application in terms of Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Rules, 1954 seeking incorporation of their names as co-tenant in the revenue records. This application of the petitioners came to be allowed by means of the order dated 31.03.2022.
It is submitted that against the order dated 31.03.2022, the private-respondents preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and on the date of presentation itself i.e. 20.04.2022 without calling upon the present petitioners, the impugned order has been passed staying the operation of the order dated 31.03.2022.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once an appeal had been pending against the main order dated 20.12.2021 and there was no interim order, it was not open for the private-respondents to have preferred a revision and without even calling upon the present petitioners, the consequential order dated 31.03.2022 has been stayed without there being a stay on the principal order dated 20.12.2021, which is per se bad in the eyes of law.
It is, thus, submitted that the respondent No.1 has exceeded the jurisdiction by passing the impugned order.
Per contra, Dr. R.S. Pande, learned Senior Advocate for the private-respondents submits that insofar as the private-respondents are concerned, they have already preferred an appeal. Unless and until the proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 attain finality inasmuch as an order passed by the Consolidation Officer attains finality up to the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation, till then it cannot be said that an order passed by the Consolidation Officer is final and capable of being implemented under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Rules, 1954.
It is further submitted that once an order had been passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 31.03.2022 even without calling upon the private-respondents and without even waiting for the reply, consequently, they being aggrieved had a right of filing a revision. It is also submitted that in terms of Section 44-A of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953, the powers which are conferred on the consolidation authority can also be exercised by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Thus, it cannot be said that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.
From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that a principal order dated 20.12.2021 has been passed in favour of the petitioners by the Consolidation Officer. It is also not disputed that the private-respondents have also preferred an appeal under Section 11 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.
During pendency of the said appeal, as preferred by the private-respondents, wherein no interim order has been passed staying the operation and effect of the order dated 20.12.2021, the petitioners had moved an application seeking implementation of the order dated 20.12.2021. It is also not disputed between the parties that the order dated 20.12.2021 has been incorporated by passing an order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Consolidation Officer. It is in the aforesaid backdrop if the contentions and the material available on record is evaluated, it would be found that the revision which has been preferred by the private-respondents, wherein the impugned order dated 20.12.2021 has been passed indicates that the revision has been preferred only against the order dated 31.03.2022. The resultant effect of the merits is that against the principal order dated 20.12.2021, the appeal is pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation against the said order dated 31.03.2022, a revision is pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which is needless to say the superior authority to the appellate authority.
The record also indicates that the crux of the controversy emerges from the order dated 20.12.2021. The rights of the parties have adjudicated in terms of the order dated 20.12.2021. The order dated 31.03.2022 primarily does not affect the rights of the parties except that it implementes the order dated 20.12.2021 which admittedly has not been stayed by any superior authority.
This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the revisional authority which on its own has entertained the revision, preferred by the private-respondents staying the operation of the order dated 31.03.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.18997 of 2017 (Consolidation) - Satgur Deen & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors., decided on 21.08.2017 to urge that against the order dated 31.03.2022, there was no occasion for the private-respondents to have preferred a revision and the revision itself is not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the private-respondents, on the other hand, has relied upon a decision reported in 2013 (121) RD 569 - Vinay Tiwari v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Having noticed the respective contentions and from a perusal of the relevant case laws cited by the parties, this Court finds that the issue is already open to be considered before the first appellate Court i.e. Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Revisional Court, who has entertained the revision wherein the issue of maintainability is being raised by the present petitioners.
In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that any decision given by this Court may affect the rights of the parties. Thus, ends of justice would be met by directing the parties to appear before the revisional Court where all the issues are left open to be decided on merits including the maintainability of the revision preferred by the private-respondents.
The merits of the order dated 20.12.2021 shall be considered and tested by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation concerned and he shall not be influenced by the mere pendency of the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order dated 31.03.2022.
In this view of the matter, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 20.04.2022 can be set aside with the observation that all the matter shall be considered and decided afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties permitting them to raise all their respective contentions including the maintainability as observed above and an endeavour would be made to decide the revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as the appeal by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as expeditiously as possible after noticing the contentions and the case laws relied by the respective parties by a reasoned order.
Till the decision of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the parties shall maintain status-quo, both in respect of possession and no third party rights shall be created as well as the status as exists today in the revenue records shall be maintained.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 3.6.2022 Rakesh/-