Petitioner challenged orders by Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation regarding recall of a previous order and reconstruction of records. High Court held that the recall order was interlocutory and rejected interference.
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. - 49
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3058 of 2019
Petitioner :- Kailash
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yashwant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel Sri Vijay Shankar for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Sagari District Azamgarh/respondent no. 2 as well as the order dated 20.09.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh/respondent no. 1.
The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 by playing fraud upon the court as well as upon the record obtained the map corrected by order dated 25.10.2000 passed by Consolidation Officer Azamgarh. When the petitioner came to know regarding the aforesaid fraud, a restoration application was filed by him. A report was called for on the aforesaid application. Thereafter a report was submitted by the revenue authorities to the Consolidation Officer Sagari. On the basis of the same the order dated 25.10.2000 was cancelled vide order dated 29.12.2011. Subsequently respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 filed an application for reconstruction of the alleged forged file on 13.03.2012. On the said application, objections were also filed and after hearing both the parties the order dated 29.11.2016 was passed by the Consolidation Officer, copy of which is appended as Annexure7 to the writ petition.
Respondent no. 3 filed an application dated 04.08.2017 for reviewing/recalling it's earlier order dated 29.11.2016. On the said application order dated 09.08.2018 was passed by which the earlier order dated 29.11.2016 was recalled, directions were given in the order dated 09.08.2018 for the construction of original records. Against the aforesaid order a revision was filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation Azamgrah. The aforesaid revision was rejected by the respondent no. 1 vide order dated 20.09.2019, copy of which is appended as Annexure-12 to the writ petition.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not
open for the consolidation authorities to review/recall their final orders passed in proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. It is further argued that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have absolutely no jurisdiction to review its own order which was passed on merits.
To the contrary it is argued that the order dated 09.08.2018 was rightly passed by the Consolidation Officer. It is further argued that aforesaid order is interlocutory in nature and as such the writ petition is not maintainable. It is further argued that revisional court after giving the cogent reasons rejected the revision filed by the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the records, it is clear that in the grounds mentioned on the recall application filed by the private respondents, the order dated 29.11.2016 was recalled by the Consolidation Officer vide its order dated 09.08.2018 and further directions were rightly given for the reconstruction of the records. Against the aforesaid order, revision was filed by the petitioner and the same was also rejected by the order dated 09.08.2018. It appears from perusal of the records that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 09.08.2018 was interlocutory in nature and as such the same was not interfered with by the revisional court.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court does not think it proper to interfere with the orders dated 09.08.2018 as well as 20.09.2019 passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
In view of above the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Swati
3 issues framed by the court
Whether consolidation authorities have jurisdiction to review or recall their own final orders.
Whether writ petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the orders of Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kailash
Deputy Director Of Consolidation
Consolidation Officer
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
