Dismissed

Ramtirtha and 12 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Varanasi and 19 Others

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2020WRIB/1341/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging orders allowing a revision and setting aside earlier consolidation orders, the court held that pending proceedings do not survive a notification under Section 6(1) of the U.P. Land Reforms Act. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as it lacked merit since the relevant order had already attained finality.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected and the impugned orders stand affirmed.

Ramtirtha and 12 Others Vs Deputy Director of… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1341 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ramtirtha And 12 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Varanasi And 19 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the privaterespondent and learned standing counsel for the Staterespondent.

¶6

The present petition is directed against the orders dated 28.12.2019 and 31.01.2020 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Varanasi in Revision No. 908 (Devendra and others Vs. Ramtirtha and others). By the order dated 28.12.2019, the revision filed by the private respondent has been allowed and the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 22.10.2019 remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer has been set aside. By order dated 28.12.2019, the revision filed by the private respondent was held to be maintainable whereas by the order dated 31.01.2020, the revising authority has allowed that revision, set aside the order passed in Appeal by the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 22.10.2019 and the restoration application as well as the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 12.12.2018 rejecting the recall application filed by the petitioners with reference to the order dated 6.7.1996 passed on objection under Section 9-A(2) of the Act.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the proceeding under Section 9-A(2) had been concluded on the basis of a fraudulent compromise document not involving all tenure holders and therefore not enforceable against the petitioners and accordingly the petitioners had a right to seek recall of such order so that he may be heard on the objection filed under Section 9-A(2) as otherwise his rights would stand extinguished. It has further been submitted that the revision was not maintainable in so far as it was filed against an interlocutory order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation.

¶8

At present the revising authority has taken a view that the restoration application filed in the year 2017 could not have been entertained as the consolidation proceedings in the village

¶9

came to be dropped by a notification issued under Section 6(1) of U.P. Act 5 of 1954, dated 27.12.2005. By operation of law, under Section 6(2) of the Act, the order dated 6.7.1996 attained finality.

¶10

The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners have been vehemently opposed by the private respondents who are relying on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Deena Nath and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation) 2010 (110) RD584 . It has been submitted that the controversy regarding the maintainability of the revision has been squarely dealt with and decided in the context of the dispute as arises in the facts of the present case. To that extent the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. The Division Bench has specifically held that under Section 48(1) of U.P. Act 5 of 1954, a revision may lie even against an interlocutory order of remand.

¶11

On the other aspect, it is seen that in Shoaba Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar and others 2011(115)RD 42 , though in the context of the appeal, it was specifically held that no right of appeal survives a notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act and it was further held that the only remedy that may be available in such circumstances is to file a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

¶12

Plain reading of Section 6(1) of the Act leaves no doubt that by operation of law any order that may have attained finality before the issuance of a notification under Section 6(1) of the Act would not survive for challenge under the procedure or remedy provided under the Act. Only a pending proceeding of appeal, recall, revision etc. may survive the effect of such notification. Accordingly leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available, the present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 17.12.2020 SA

Ramtirtha and 12 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Varanasi and 19 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramtirtha and 12 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Varanasi and 19 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

Sri Prafull Saraswat Vs Sri Manish Singh and 18 Others

S.J.P. Infracon Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Saurabh Mishra and Another Vs the Settlement Officer Consolidation and 15 Others

Danish @ Denish and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nirmala Devi Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 5 Others

Harsh Kumar and Another Vs Satendra Kumar and 3 Others