Allahabad High Court
Krishna Kumar And Anr. vs D.D.C.,Sultanpur And Ors. on 8 March, 2021
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 6 Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 3197 of 2020 Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar And Anr. Respondent :- D.D.C.,Sultanpur And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manuvendra Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
1. Supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed today by the counsel for the petitioners is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
3. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.12.2019 passed by respondent no.1 in Revision no.1169, Computerized no.2018530468000507 'Krishna Kumar and others vs. Ram Sagar and others' and the order dated 17.10.2018 passed by the S.O.C. and the order dated 29.9.2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners are sons of Dev Narayan Lal whereas respondents no.4 to 11 are sons of Sahab Lal, Bramha Lal and Vishwanath Lal and respondent no.12 is the widow of Vishwanath Lal. As per the pedigree shown in Para 5 of the petition, one Ramai Lal had two sons Nagesar Lal and Sahab Lal and Nagesar Lal had one son Dev Narayan Lal. Sahab Lal had three sons Bramha Lal, Tribhuwan Lal and Vishwanath Lal. Respondent nos.4 to 12 belong to the branch of Sahab Lal. There was ancestral property of family situated in four villages. A family settlement took place and it was also registered on 9.2.1955, between Dev Narayan Lal and Sahab Lal and in pursuance of the said family settlement, the parties concerned took possession of their respective shares and started cultivating the land with respect to three villages i.e. Pakarpur, Safipur and Sodhanpur. The land situated in village Gudara however, remained in dispute, although there was a family settlement in respect of property situated in village Gudara also. In pursuance of such settlement, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners Dev Narayan Lal was in possession of the property but his name was not recorded in the Khatauni and it continued to be in the name of Sahab Lal, predecessor in interest of respondent nos.4 to 12.
5. When consolidation operation begun, father of the petitioners Dev Narayan Lal filed objections under Section 9 of the Act in 1986. Such objections remained pending for almost 30 years and were decided on 22.7.2015 by the Consolidation Officer in favour of the petitioners' father on the basis of his possession and also on the basis of family settlement. The order dated 22.7.2015 was passed on merit. The petitioners' father moved an application under Rule 109 and his name was also mutated in the revenue records on 19.11.2015.
The predecessor in interest of respondent nos.4 to 12 filed a recall application alleging that they were not heard, which application was allowed on 29.9.2016 and the Consolidation Officer started hearing the objections again on merits. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.9.2016, the petitioners filed an appeal before the S.O.C. The S.O.C. allowed the appeal on 29.5.2017 and set aside the order dated 29.9.2016. The Consolidation Officer's order dated 22.7.2015 which was passed on merit thus became final.
6. The respondent nos.4 to 12 thereafter filed a recall application before the S.O.C. praying for recall of the order dated 29.5.2017. The recall application was entertained by the S.O.C. on 30.5.2017 and allowed on the ground that against an order dated 29.9.2016 passed on the restoration application, a revision had also been filed which was pending. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 30.5.2017 filed a revision before the D.D.C. which was allowed on 24.7.2018 and the matter was remanded to the S.O.C. to decide the recall application afresh. The S.O.C. by an order dated 17.10.2018 allowed the restoration application again and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer, saying that there is no provision of filing an appeal against the restoration application. A revision should have been filed by the petitioners.
7. The petitioners again filed a revision against the order dated 17.10.2018, which has been rejected by the D.D.C. by his order dated 17.12.2019. Hence this petition.
8. It is the case of the petitioners that respondents have repeatedly filed restoration applications and have not challenged the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 22.7.2015 in appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Anar Kali and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1997(15) LCD 921, that if an order has been passed on merits, it is not open for the consolidation authorities to review/recall their final orders in exercise of alleged inherent powers.
10. Learned counsel for respondent nos.4 to 12 has submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as it has been filed against an order passed by the D.D.C. remanding the matter to the S.O.C. Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Rajit Ram Singh and others vs. Mahadev Singh and others, 2002 (20) LCD 248 and also a judgment of the Supreme Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal and others vs. Deorajin Debi (Smt.) and another, AIR 1960 SC 941.
11. It has been submitted by the counsel for the respondents that it is because of the respondents alone that the matter has remained pending before the Consolidation Officer. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have shown how at least thrice the matter was dismissed in default by the Consolidation Officer, but later on restored. It is also their case that the Consolidation Officer has not heard the respondents on merit and they should get an opportunity of being heard on merit before any order declaring their rights is made by the Consolidation Officer, as otherwise fresh litigation would be barred under Section 49 of the Act.
12. When the writ petition was entertained, an order of maintaining status quo was passed which is continuing. The interim order that was passed by this Court had directed maintenance of status quo by the parties with regard to possession of the land in dispute and entries in the revenue records and a direction was also issued to them that none of them shall alienate the property in dispute. However, this Court had not stayed the operation of the order dated 17.12.2019 wherein a direction was issued to the parties to appear before the Consolidation Officer on 26.12.2019 to pursue their case.
It is not clear from the affidavit filed in this petition as to whether order dated 17.12.2019 was complied with and the parties appeared before the Consolidation Officer.
13. This Court having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for private respondents has gone through the orders impugned in this petition and finds that till date, objections filed under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act in 1986 before the Consolidation Officer have remained to be finalized.
14. This Court also finds from a perusal of the pleadings on record that the order dated 22.7.2015 did not attain finality as a recall application was entertained and allowed by the Consolidation Officer initially. Thereafter the appeal filed by the petitioners was initially allowed but later on, dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The S.O.C. observed that the petitioners ought to have filed revision against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. However, on a specific query being made by the Court whether such revision was filed, it has been answered in negative. The orders passed later on by the authorities can be merely said to be procedural in nature as none of them have decided the rights of the parties and because of pendency of this petition, the case has remained undecided till date.
15. With regard to the maintainability of the revision or the maintainability of the writ petition, this Court finds no necessity to pass any order on the merit of such arguments as the matter can be disposed of in terms of the order passed by the D.D.C. by directing the Consolidation Officer to hear the parties on merit and to decide Section 9 objections as expeditiously as possible.
16. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the Consolidation Officer to hear and decide objections under Section 9 of the Act in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties, but he is further directed not to give any adjournment in the matter and fix short dates preferably every week so that the matter is finally heard and rights determined within a period of three months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned.
17. Till decision of Section 9 objections by the Consolidation Officer, status quo shall be maintained between the parties so far as possession of the property in question is concerned as also maintenance of records and none of the parties shall alienate the property in dispute.
Order Date :- 8.3.2021 Sachin