Allowed

Teju and Others v. D.D.C. and Others

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2018WRIB/56430/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside a revisional order dated 27.11.2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The order was quashed because it was essentially a review of a prior order passed without jurisdiction, as established by precedent.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 27.11.2003 passed by respondent No. 1 is hereby set aside. Respondents are at liberty to challenge the order dated 10.10.2002 if so advised.

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

¶1

Court No. - 8

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 56430 of 2003

¶3

Petitioner :- Teju & Others Respondent :- D.D.C. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Deo Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.S.Ram

¶4

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Narendra Deo Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel as well as Shri R.S. Ram, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

Against the order dated 9.6.1997 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.'), respondents filed a Revision under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') before respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), which was registered as Revision No. 1296/924/1077. The prayer of the revisionists in the aforesaid Revision was that area of their Chak on Plot No. 1041 be reduced and area of Chak allotted to them on Plot No. 855 be increased as the aforesaid arrangement would facilitate proper irrigation of Chaks allotted to the revisionist. Plot Nos. 854 and 855 were original holdings of the revisionists. The said revision was decided by respondent No. 1 vide his judgement and order dated 10.10.2002. However, respondent No. 1 through his order dated 10.10.2002 rearranged the Chaks allotted to the revisionists on Plot No. 855 and increased the area of Chak allotted to them on Plot No. 1041. There is recital in the order dated 10.10.2002 passed by respondent N0. 1 that the said order was being passed after hearing the parties through their counsels.

¶7

Aggrieved by order dated 10.10.2002 passed by respondent No. 1, respondent Nos. 2 to 7 filed restoration application before respondent No. 1 stating that they were not heard by respondent No. 1 In Revision No.

¶8

1296/924/1077. The respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 27.11.2003 allowed the restoration application filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and rearranged the Chaks allotted to different persons including Chaks allotted to the petitioners. The aforesaid order dated 27.11.2003 has been challenged in the present writ petition.

¶9

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order dated 10.10.2002 was passed by respondent no. 1 after hearing the counsel for the parties which included the contesting respondents and the said fact would be evident from the contents of the aforesaid order. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in light of the aforesaid fact, the restoration application was not maintainable and the order dated 27.11.2003 passed by respondent No. 1 is in effect a review of his previous order dated 10.10.2002 and is, therefore, without jurisdiction as under the Act, 1953, the respondent No. 1 did not have the power to review his order. Rebutting the argument of counsel for petitioner, counsel for respondents has argued that the order dated 10.10.2002 was passed without hearing the revisionists. It has been further contended by the counsel for the respondents that a comparative perusal of memorandum of Revision filed by the respondents and the contents of order dated 10.10.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 would show that the order dated 10.10.2002 was unjust as the revisionists were dislocated from their original holdings through the said order even though they were small tenure holders and therefore, as the order dated 27.11.2003 passed by respondent No. 1 does substantial justice between the parties, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

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

¶11

It is evident from the order dated 10.10.2002 passed by

¶12

respondent No. 1 that respondent Nos. 2 to 7 were heard through their counsels. It has not been denied by the contesting respondents either in restoration application or writ petition that their counsels had not appeared to argue the case before respondent No. 1. There is no finding of respondent No. 1 in his subsequent order dated 27.11.2003 that his previous order dated 10.10.2002 was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the revisionists. Thus, the order dated 27.11.2003 passed by respondent No. 1 is, in effect, a review of previous order dated 10.10.2002 which according to law laid down by this Court in Shivraji Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad 1997 (88) RD 562 is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

¶13

On the aforesaid short point, the present writ petition is allowed. The order dated 27.11.2003 passed by respondent No. 1 is hereby set aside. However, as the order dated 10.10.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 was recalled by him through his subsequent order dated 27.11.2003, there was no occasion for respondent Nos. 2 to 7 to challenge the order dated 10.10.2002. In such circumstances, the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 shall be at liberty to take appropriate action challenging the order dated 10.10.2002 passed by respondent No. 1, if so advised.

¶14

Order Date :- 23.3.2018 Anurag/-

Teju and Others v. D.D.C. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teju and Others v. D.D.C. 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

Ganga Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Kashi Vs D.D.C.and Others

Ravindra Kumar Vs D.D.C. and Others

Sita Ram Vs D.D.C. and Others

Bharat Singh and Others Vs Principal Secretary Revenue and Others

Khalid Kamal Vs D.D.C. and Others