Allahabad High Court
Sagir Ahmad And Another vs Addl. Distrect Magistrate/ Deputy ... on 27 January, 2023
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 65 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sagir Ahmad And Another Respondent :- Addl. Distrect Magistrate/ Deputy Director Consolidation, Amethi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijai Bahadur Verma,Pawan Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Kumar Yadav,Prabhat Kumar,Yogesh Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Sri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of private respondent No.2-Peer Mohammad, which is taken on record.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners says that he may be permitted to implead the necessary parties in the memo of the petition.
The prayer is acceded.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the necessary parties, during course of the day.
In view of order proposed to be passed, notice to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is dispensed with.
By means of present petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the respondent No.1-Additional Distrcit Magistrate/Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Amethi, whereby respondent No.1 interfered in the order dated 15.10.2020 passed by the respondent No.6-Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi by which the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 21.11.1996 was rejected as also set aside the order dated 21.11.1996 passed by respondent No.5-Consolidation Officer, Raibareli.
Brief facts of the case, which are relevant for proper adjudication of the present case, are to the effect that the order dated 21.11.1996 was passed by the Consolidation Officer, Raibareli-respondent No.5 whereby the co-tenancy rights were provided by the Consolidation Officer in relation to Khata No. 39 to Abdul Bahab, Mohd. Jaheer and Mohd. Kayyum. It would be apt to clarify that petitioner No.1-Sagir Ahmad and respondent No.4-Mahmood Ahmad are the sons of Late Mohd. Jaheer and petitioner No.2-Shayda Begum, is the wife of Mohd. Jaheer.
The respondent No.2-Peer Mohammad S/o Late Abdul Bahab after coming to know about the order dated 21.11.1996 and being aggrieved by the same, filed an appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay before respondent No.6- Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi under Section 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"), registered as Appeal No. 154 of 2020. The application for condonation of delay was rejected by the respondent No.6-Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi vide order dated 15.10.2020. Consequently, the appeal was also rejected.
Being aggrieved, private respondent No.2-Peer Mohammad filed the revision under Section 48(1) of the Act of 1953, which was registered as Revision No.386/408. In the revision, following prayer was sought:-
"vr% Jheku th ls fuosnu gS fd mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fuxjkuh Lohdkj dj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; c0v0p0 }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fn- 15-10-20 dks fujLr djrs gq, fuxjkuh dks Hkkjrh; fe;kn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&5 dk ykHk iznku djrs gq, v/khuLFk U;k;ky; p0v0 }kjk ikfjr vkns'k 21-11-1996 fujLr dj vk/kkjo"kZ [kkrk la0&39 iwoZor~ cnLrwj cgky djus dh d`ik dh tk;A"
The revisional authority-respondent No.1- Additional Distrcit Magistrate/Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Amethi allowed the revision vide its order dated 25.11.2022.
While assailing the impugned order dated 25.11.2022, Sri Vijai Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that to set aside the order dated 21.11.1996 private respondent No.2-Peer Mohammad took several pleas in the appeal before the respondent No.6 including the plea based upon the date of death of his father which were not considered on its merits by respondent No.6 as the appeal was rejected as a consequence of rejection of application for condonation of dealy in filing the appeal after about 21 years of order appealed dated 21.11.1996.
Accordingly, the respondent No.1, revisional authority after considering various aspects of the case only in relation to the order passed on the application for condonation of delay dated 15.10.2020 passed by the respondent No.6 and thereafter interfering in the said order ought to have remanded the matter back to the respondent No.6 to decide the appeal on its own merits afresh. However, in the instant case, without recording the findings on various aspects of the case including the plea based upon the date of death of Abdul Bahab, the respondent No.1 interfered in the order dated 21.11.1996. As such, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter.
Opposing the present petition for the relief sought, Sri Prabhat Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of private opposite party No.2 and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State stated that the respondent No.1 under Section 48 of the Act of 1953 is empowered to consider all aspects of the case. He can also enter into the merits of the case and the power of the Deputy Director of Consolidation are very vide/ unfettered, as such, the order impugned is justified. They in support of their case placed reliance on the judgment dated 01.03.2019 passed by this Court in Writ - B No. 369 of 2019 (Ram Laxman and Others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others) and on the judgment dated 09.01.1996 of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 2252 of 1978 [Preetam Singh (Dead) By Lrs. and Others vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation and Others].
The power of respondent No.1 under Section 48 of the Act of 1953 has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He reiterated that interference in the order dated 21.11.1996 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that too without recording any finding on the merits of the case is unjustified. As such, the matter requires consideration.
Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record particularly the order challenged in this petition.
From the order dated 25.11.2022, it is apparent that the respondent No.1 has not touched the merits of the case by recording findings in relation to several aspects of the case as pleaded by the private respondent No.2 before respondent No.6-Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi in the appeal filed before it including the issue related to affect of the date of death of predecessor in interest of private respondent No.2 on the order of Consolidation Officer, Raibareli dated 21.11.1996.
Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that interference is required in the matter. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The order dated 25.11.2022 is set aside only in relation to setting aside the order dated 21.11.1996 passed by the respondent No.6. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.6-Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi to decide the appeal on merits within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In concluding the proceedings of the appeal, respondent No.6 shall not provide any adjournment to the parties to the litigation. It is in view of the fact that initial order in issue was passed on 21.11.1996. The respondent No.1 is directed to send the entire record to the respondent No.6 forthwith.
Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State shall communicate this order to the authority concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 27.1.2023 Vinay/-