Allahabad High Court
Ram Bachan And 2 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 ... on 27 January, 2020
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 68 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 35 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ram Bachan And 2 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.M. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Maurya Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri S.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shiv Ram Singh, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rajesh Maurya, learned counsel for the private respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 19.11.2019 passed under Section 48(1) of the UP Act No.5 of 1954 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh. By that order, the revision filed by the present petitioners has been rejected. That revision had been filed against a common order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Azamgarh dated 16.05.2017 in Appeal No.265/276 filed by father of the petitioners and Appeal No.266 filed by respondent nos.4 & 5. Those appeals had been filed against the order dated 15.09.2011 passed by the Consolidation Officer. While, the appeal filed by the present petitioners was within time, the appeal filed by respondent nos.4 & 5 were delayed by about four years. In the appeal filed by the petitioners, grievance had been voiced against the order of the Consolidation Officer, whereby he had condoned the delay, upon payment of cost Rs.3,000/-. According to the petitioners, the delay could not have been condoned without giving reasons. In the appeal filed by the respondent no.5, grievance had been voiced against that part of the order, whereby the matter has been posted for further hearing on the issue of recall.
3. Earlier, vide order dated 23.06.1997, acting on a compromise claimed by the petitioners, the Consolidation Officer had concluded the proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Act No.5 of 1954. That order had been recalled subsequently on 15.02.1999, upon application dated 23.07.1988. It was this application which the petitioners claim was belated. The appellate authority, in turn, vide order dated 16.05.2017 has, on one hand, made certain observations against the Consolidation officer while imposing cost without condoning the delay and, on the other, he has himself allowed both appeals i.e. the appeal filed by the petitioners as also by the respondent no.5, without recording any reason, other than observing that no cost may have been imposed by the Consolidation Officer unless delay had been condoned as also making certain observations that the respondent no.5 was a poor lady.
4. The petitioners filed a writ petition against the aforesaid order which has been dismissed by observing that the same is not maintainable as the appellate authority has only remitted the matter to the Consolidation Officer.
5. Insofar as that conclusion of the revising authority is concerned, the same may not detain the Court, further, inasmuch as in Deena Nath & Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation 2010 (7) ADJ 533, a Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that a revision against appellate order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, remitting the matter to the Consolidation Officer after setting aside the order passed by the later, authority is maintainable. Therefore, the revising authority was clearly in error in holding that the revision was not maintainable.
6. Also, it appears that the revising authority has not taken note of the fact that the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide a common order dated 16.05.2017 has allowed both appeals filed by the petitioners as also the respondent no.5 without ascribing any reason as may have led to such a conclusion. While, the petitioners were aggrieved by the action of the Consolidation Officer in proceeding to re-hear the matter without first condoning the delay, grievance of respondent no.5 was quite different, of the Consolidation Officer re-examining the issue of recall. Unless specific and separate reasons had been given by the appellate authority to allow both appeals which were clearly filed on different points, it is difficult to sustain such order.
7. In such facts, the order passed by the revising authority dated 19.11.2019 and the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Azamgarh dated 16.05.2017 are found to be laconic and as such may not be sustained. Accordingly, both orders are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Settlement Officer Consolidation to pass a fresh order in view of the observations made above.
8. It is made clear that no conclusion of fact has been drawn by this Court and the parties are at liberty to place their contentions before the appellate authority. However a word of caution may be added for the authority to pass such orders as it may deem fit considering individual ground of challenge being raised by both parties. The order that may be passed, may reflect such reasons.
9. Since the matter is old, it is expected that the appellate authority shall take up the matter on priority and conclude the same within a period of three months, subject to both parties offering cooperation in such proceedings.
10. With the above observations, the present petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.1.2020 S.Chaurasia