Allowed

Babu Ram and Another v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Saharanpur and Others

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2018WRIB/35265/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court bench allowed a writ petition filed by chak holders who were not given notice or an opportunity of hearing before the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed orders under Section 48(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The court held that the statutory procedure requires a hearing at this stage, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the matter for fres

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the orders dated 4.3.2004 and 23.12.2006 passed by the respondent were quashed; the matter was remanded to pass fresh orders after hearing.

Babu Ram and Another Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 35265 of 2007

¶3

Petitioner :- Babu Ram & Another

¶4

Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Saharanpur & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhusudan Dixit,U.C. Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.K.Pundir

¶5

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Case has been called out in the revised list.

¶7

Counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel representing respondent no. 1 are present.

¶8

No one appeared on behalf of respondents to oppose the present writ petition.

¶9

Petitioners are chak holders Nos. 202 and 381. On a reference made under Section 48(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), Reference No. 346 of 2004 was registered in the court of respondent no. 1. The aforesaid reference was decided by respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 4.3.2004 affecting the chaks of the petitioners. It is alleged that the order dated 4.3.2004 was passed by respondent no. 1 without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without giving them any opportunity of hearing. When the petitioners came to know about the order dated 4.3.2004 passed by respondent no. 1, they filed a recall/restoration application alleging that the order dated 4.3.2004 was passed ex-parte without hearing the petitioners and, therefore, prayed that the said order be recalled and fresh orders be passed after hearing the petitioners. The aforesaid application was filed on 27.10.2004 and was dismissed by respondent no. 1 vide

¶10

his order dated 23.12.2006. The orders dated 4.3.2004 and 23.12.2006 passed by respondent no. 1 have been challenged in the present writ petition.

¶11

A perusal of the order dated 23.12.2006 passed by respondent no. 1 shows that in his aforesaid order, respondent no. 1 has recorded a finding that before making the reference, the petitioners were present before the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and, therefore, the reference was made by the sub-ordinate consolidation authorities after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. In his order dated 23.12.2006, respondent no. 1 has also recorded his opinion that in the aforesaid circumstances, it could not be said that the petitioners had no knowledge about the reference proceedings and, therefore, the recall/restoration application filed by the petitioners was liable to be rejected. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.12.2006 passed by respondent no. 1 would also show that in his aforesaid order, respondent no. 1 has not recorded any finding on the grievance of the petitioners that they were not given an opportunity of hearing by respondent no. 1 before passing the order dated 4.3.2004.

¶12

A joint reading of Sections 48(1) and 48(3) of the Act, 1953 would show that any proceedings instituted on a reference made by the sub-ordinate consolidation authorities to Deputy Director of Consolidation, the concerned tenure holder is entitled to an opportunity of hearing at both the stages i.e. by the sub-ordinate consolidation authorities before making the reference and subsequently by the Deputy Director of Consolidation

¶13

while passing an order on the reference made to him under Section 48(3) of the Act, 1953. The aforesaid conclusion is drawn from the fact that Section 48(3) of the Act, 1953 provides that after the record of the proceedings are referred to the concerned Director of Consolidation action is to be taken under sub-section (1) which means that the procedure prescribed under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1953 shall be followed by the Director of Consolidation. Section 48(1) of the Act, 1953 provides that orders can be passed by the concerned Director of Consolidation only after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard. In view of the aforesaid, the orders dated 23.12.2006 and 4.3.20016 passed by respondent no. 1 are apparently contrary to the procedure prescribed under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1953 and are therefore liable to be set-aside.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid reason, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 4.3.2004 and 23.12.2006 passed by respondent no. 1 are hereby quashed.

¶15

The matter is remanded back to respondent no. 1 to pass fresh orders in Reference No. 346 of 2004 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other concerned tenure holders. Respondent no. 1 shall pass fresh orders within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him by either of the parties.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed .

¶17

Order Date :- 9.4.2018 Satyam

Babu Ram and Another v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Saharanpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Ram and Another v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Saharanpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Saran Vs Asstt. D.D.C. and Others

Triveni Singh Vs D.D.C. Mirzapur and Others

Lakhpat Singh Vs Joint Director of Consolidation and Others

Chhote Lal Vs D.D.C. and Other

Keshav Vs D.D.C. Sonbhadra and Others

Mithilesh and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others