A writ petition challenging an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing a revision under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, was dismissed. The court found the lower order was based on evidence and lacked perversity or illegality.
Interim order, if any, is vacated. The writ petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 52792 of 2004
Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Respondent :- D.D.C. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Baranwal,Akhtar Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ayub Khan,Rajiv Sisodia,S.Q.Khan,V.S. Chaudhary
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Case has been called out in the revised list.
Counsels for respondent nos. 1 to 4 are present.
The dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings held in the village from which the present writ petition arises relates to Plot No. 697/9. It transpires from the record that the aforesaid plot was recorded in the name of respondent no. 4. Subsequently, relying on a sale deed dated 4.12.2002 produced by the petitioner and on an alleged compromise entered into between the petitioner and respondent no. 4 on 18.1.2003, respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 18.1.2003 directed that the name of respondent no. 4 be deleted from the revenue records and the petitioner be recorded in his place. Against the order dated 18.1.2003, respondent no. 4 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2003 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (i.e. respondent no. 2). Against the orders dated 18.1.2003 and 13.10.2003 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1 under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953) which was numbered as Revision No. 9 and was allowed by respondent no. 1 vide his judgment and order dated 11.10.2004. The order dated 11.10.2004 has been challenged in the present writ petition.
I have perused the records.
A perusal of the order dated 11.10.2004 passed by respondent no. 1 shows that the said order has been passed by respondent no. 1 on the ground that the compromise dated 18.1.2003 on which respondent no. 3 i.e. the Assistant Consolidation Officer relied while passing his order dated 18.1.2003 and the proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer were suspicious. In support of aforesaid reasoning, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has relied on the fact that the
petitioner had filed his objections dated 6.2.2003 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the aforesaid objections were received by the office of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It was stated by the petitioner that the said objections were filed as case was pending before the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the said date, and therefore, the objections were received by the office of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The aforesaid fact has been relied by the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1 while passing the order dated 11.10.2004. The findings recorded by respondent no. 1 in his impugned order dated 11.10.2004 are findings of fact and based on evidence on record. There is no jurisdictional error in the order dated 11.10.2004 passed by respondent no. 1. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the aforesaid order.
The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed .
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 21.3.2018 Satyam
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 deserves to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravindra Kumar
D.D.C.
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
