Allowed

Faimida v. Deputy Director of Consolidation District Baghpat and 8 Others

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2020WRIB/1181/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge held that consolidating challenges to orders from valuation proceedings and chak allotment proceedings into a single revision is incompetent and illegal. The impugned order allowing such a combined revision was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.07.2020 set aside; matter remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation to entertain revisions separately.

Faimida Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation District Baghpat and 8 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1181 of 2020 Petitioner :- Faimida Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation District Baghpat And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sajiwan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Mishra,Azad Rai,Rahul Mishra

¶3

Connected with

¶4

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1175 of 2020 Petitioner :- Islam And Another Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sajiwan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Mishra,Azad Rai,Rahul Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 1181 of 2020 in Court today, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rahul Mishra for the respondents and Shri Azad Rai for the Gaon Sabha in both these two writ petitions, which are both directed against the same impugned order.

¶8

Although, the matter appears to have a long and chequered history, but for the sake of convenience that is not being adverted to. The writ petitions can be decided on a single short point, which alone is being adverted to.

¶9

It appears that there were to separate sets of proceedings; one under Section 9-B(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act filed by Smt. Faimida and the other are chak allotment proceedings. It is submitted that the objection under Section 9- B for valuation of certain plots was allowed by the Consolidation Officer. The order was set aside in appeal and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration and is stated to be allowed finally by the Consolidation Officer. It is also stated that those proceedings have drawn to a close.

¶10

It appears that in certain revisions, which arose out of orders passed in proceedings for allotment of chaks, the orders passed in proceedings under Section 9-B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were also impugned and have also been set aside. This fact is admitted to both learned counsel for the parties that the impugned revisional orders in these writ petitions pertain both of proceedings under Section 9-B and under Section 20.

¶11

In my considered opinion, the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed manifest illegality in considering revisions, which were directed both against orders passed in proceedings under Section 9-B(2) and proceedings for allotment of chaks. This could not have been done and in any case a separate revision is required to be filed against every order, which is impugned. Unless and until the orders are a continuation of the same proceedings.

¶12

Accordingly and for the above reason alone, the impugned order dated 30..07.2020 cannot be sustained and is, hereby, set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to ensure that only revisions which are maintainable and are directed either against orders passed in proceedings for valuation or in proceedings for allotment of chaks are entertained and that too, separately.

¶13

Any revision which challenges, both orders passed in chak allotment proceedings and proceedings regarding valuation, is definitely incompetent, not maintainable and should not be considered.

¶14

This order shall apply only insofar as Revision No. 285 of 2017, Adesh and another Vs. Smt. Faimida and others and Revision No. 286 of 2016, Adesh Vs. Gram Sabha have been decided by the impugned.

¶15

Insofar as the revisional order pertains to the other revisions, the same is not being set aside as those orders are not under challenge.

¶16

Subject to the above, the writ petitions are allowed.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.10.2020 Mayank

Faimida v. Deputy Director of Consolidation District Baghpat and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faimida v. Deputy Director of Consolidation District Baghpat and 8 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

Mishri Lal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Pawan Patel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sri Rajat Kumar and 2 Others Vs Sri Mukesh Kumar and Another

Ram Niwas Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation Mahamaya Nagar and Another

Islam and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 8 Others

Irfan Khan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others