Allahabad High Court
Gopi Chand And 3 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 30 ... on 22 January, 2020
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 49 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5425 of 2018 Petitioner :- Gopi Chand And 3 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 30 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabha Shanker Pandey,D.N. Joshi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ritesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard Sri D.N. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as Sri Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 4, the following order was passed on 23.10.2018:-
"Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate has filed his appearance on behalf of respondent no.4, which is taken on record.
Heard counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma counsel for the respondent no.4.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the order impugned which has been passed on revision filed by the respondent no.4, assigns absolutely no reason for making large scale modification in the chaks of the parties. In any case, the case of the petitioners has not been considered nor any reason assigned as to why their chak were liable to be modified.
Counsel appearing for the respondent no.4, may file a counter affidavit within two weeks. Petitioners will have a week thereafter to file rejoinder.
Issue notice to respondent nos. 5 to 30 by Registered Post A.D. Steps be taken within 10 days.
Until further order, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 14.03.2018, shall remain stayed, unless already implemented on the spot."
It is argued by the learned counsel for the parties that against the same order of the respondent no.1 dated 14.03.2018 Writ B No. 1123 of 2019 was filed by one Ram Parvesh. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 25.09.2019. Order is reproduced below:-
"List has been revised. No one has appeared for the respondents.
In view of the office report dated 12.7.2019, service of notice on respondent no. 2 is deemed sufficient.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 14.3.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia in Revision No.776/865 whereby the D.D.C. has amended the allotment of Chaks made till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation thereby affecting the Chak of the petitioner.
The revision was filed by respondent no.2. It has been stated in paragraph nos. 5 & 9 of the writ petition that petitioner was not impleaded as opposite party in the aforesaid revision and no notice or summon was issued to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner had no knowledge of the proceedings in the revision and the order dated 14.3.2018 has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
No counter affidavit has been filed rebutting the contention of the petitioner in the aforesaid paragraphs of the writ petition and therefore, the averments made in paragraph nos.5 & 9 of the writ petition are taken as true.
A reading of the order dated 14.3.2018 passed by the D.D.C also shows that there is no recital in the aforesaid order that the petitioner was heard before passing the order dated 14.3.2018. A reading of the order dated 14.3.2018 also shows that while passing the aforesaid order affecting the Chak of the petitioner allotted till the stage of S.O.C, the D.D.C has also not considered the case of the petitioner or any hardship that would be caused to him by amending the allotment of Chak.
For the aforesaid reason, the order dated 14.3.2018 passed by the D.D.C, Ballia in Revision No.776/865 is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside and is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the D.D.C to pass fresh orders in Revision No.776/865 after giving the affected parties an opportunity of hearing within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed."
Since the order dated 14.03.2018 passed by respondent no. 1 which is under challenged in the present writ petition has already been quashed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the Writ Petition filed by Ram Parvesh (Supra), no useful purpose will be served to keep the present writ petition remain pending.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the present writ petition is disposed of finally in terms of the order dated 25.09.2019 passed in the writ petition filed by Ram Parvesh (Supra).
In view of the facts as narrated above the order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 1, copy of which is appended as Annexure-4 to the writ petition is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 1 to pass a fresh order in the aforesaid writ petition after giving opportunity of hearing to all the tenure holders within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2020 Swati