Allowed

Sant Gulam v. D.D.C. Basti and Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2018WRIB/4041/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition and quashed an order by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The court held that the authority lacked jurisdiction to recall a previous order and direct a rehearing without first condoning the statutory delay in filing the recall applications.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 9.1.2002 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed; the matter is remanded to pass fresh orders after considering the delay issue.

Sant Gulam Vs D.D.C. Basti and Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4041 of 2002

¶3

Petitioner :- Sant Gulam Respondent :- D.D.C., Basti And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sabhapati Tiwari,Shiv Dayal Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar,G.S. Dubey,Tripathi B.G.Bhai,V.P.Chaturvedi

¶4

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Dissatisfied with the orders of subordinate Consolidation Officers rejecting the objections of the petitioner regarding Plot No. 1171 (1-4-0) (hereinafter referred to as, 'disputed plot'), petitioner filed Revision No. 695/566/466/228 under Section 48(1)of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') before respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), which was allowed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 7.7.2000 and it was directed that petitioner be recorded as Bhumidhar of the disputed plot. Subsequently, respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 filed applications dated 22.11.2001 and 30.4.2001 before the D.D.C. praying that the order dated 7.7.2000 be recalled. On the said applications, the D.D.C. passed an order dated 9.1.2002 recalling his previous order dated 7.7.2000. It is relevant to note that the applications dated 22.11.2001 and 30.4.2001 filed by respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were time barred and, therefore, the said applications were filed alongwith an application praying to condone the delay in filing the said recall applications.

¶6

It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 9.1.2002 was passed by the D.D.C. without condoning the delay in filing the applications dated 22.11.2001 and 30.4.2001, and therefore, the order dated 9.1.2002 was without jurisdiction as the D.D.C. could not have recalled his previous order dated 7.7.2000 and directed a rehearing of Revision No. 695/566/466/228 without considering and condoning the delay in filing the applications dated 22.11.2001 and 30.4.2001 filed by

¶7

respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

¶8

Rebutting the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri B.G. Bhai, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 has argued that the order dated 7.7.2000 was obtained by fraud and the said order could not have been passed without issuing any notice to the concerned Gaon Sabha because the land was recorded as Banjar in the Revenue Records, and therefore, the D.D.C. had rightly recalled his previous order dated 7.7.2000 and directed that the matter be reheard on merits. It has been argued by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 that in view of aforesaid circumstances, it is not fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in his support counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 has relied on judgement of this Court reported in Umesh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2017 (137 RD 770 .

¶9

I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

The question whether the order dated 7.7.2000 was obtained by fraud and whether the same was an illegal order as it was passed without issuing any notice to the concerned Gaon Sabha is a question which relates to the merits of the case. However, in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Ram Kali Devi Vs. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Shamshabad and Others (1998) 9 SCC 558 the D.D.C. could not have recalled his previous order dated 7.7.2000 without considering and condoning the delay in filing the applications praying for recall of the order dated 7.7.2000. The fact that the issue involved in the case related to public importance and the land vested in the Gaon Sabha could have been a good ground for the D.D.C. to condone the delay in filing the recall applications. The D.D.C. did not have the jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case without condoning the

¶11

delay in filing the said applications. The law laid down in the judgement of this Court in Umesh (Supra) is not applicable in the present case inasmuch as the said judgement does not deal with the issue whether any authority can proceed to hear a case or application on merits without condoning the delay in instituting the case.

¶12

In the circumstances the order dated 9.1.2002 passed by the D.D.C. is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti to pass fresh orders on the applications dated 22.11.2001 and 30.4.2001 filed by respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 after considering and deciding the issue regarding delay in filing the said applications. The aforesaid order shall be passed by respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti within a period of 2 months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him by either of the parties. In case respondent No. 1-D.D.C. is of the view that the delay in filing the aforesaid applications is liable to be condoned he shall, in view of the judgement of this Court reported in Laxmikant Vs. State of U.P. 2003 (95) RD 374 , be at liberty to pass a composite order on the merits of the case as well as on the question of delay and may also hear the parties on both the issues at the same time.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed .

¶14

Order Date :- 10.4.2018 Anurag/-

Sant Gulam v. D.D.C. Basti and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Gulam v. D.D.C. Basti and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhote Lal Vs D.D.C. and Other

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

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

Keshav Vs D.D.C. Sonbhadra and Others

Mithilesh and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Khuman Vs Board of Revenue and Others