Partly allowed

Banwari Lal and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 5 Others

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2021WRIB/1591/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a 2018 order remitting a land consolidation matter to the Consolidation Officer, violating a 2015 Supreme Court directive to decide on merits. The Court set aside the 2018 order, remitted it to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide specific framed issues within four months without adjournments, relying on finality of its earlier judgment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.01.2018 set aside; matter remitted to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide framed issues within four months; specific directions for speedy disposal and no adjournments.

Banwari Lal and Another Vs Deputy Director of… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1591 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Banwari Lal And Another

¶4

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rati Bhan Singh,Karuna Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Tyagi

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken in the record.

¶7

By the impugned order dated 08.01.2018 the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra has remitted the matter to the Consolidation Officer for fresh consideration after permitting the parties to introduce evidence and hearing them on merits. The findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra in the impugned order is directly in the teeth of the findings and directions issued by this Court in the judgment rendered on 24.09.2015 in Writ B No. 54032 of 2015 (Banwari Lal and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others).

¶8

Counsel for the respondents have made a specific concession before this Court they they had no objection that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may decide the revision on merits.

¶9

The petitioners now seek to resile from their earlier undertaking given before this Court recorded in the order dated 24.09.2015.

¶10

The operative portion of the judgment dated 24.09.2015 is extracted hereunder:

¶11

"I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners. The counsel for the respondents has no objection in case the Deputy Director of Consolidation decides the revision on merit.

¶12

Since the evidence of both the parties were complete as such the revision should have been decided on merit by the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself instead of remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer as in view of Explanation (3) to Section 48 of the Act, he has full jurisdiction to decide all the issues relating to fact as well as law.

¶13

In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is partly allowed. The order

¶14

dated 18.6.2015 so far as it relates to remand of the case is set aside. The matter is remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh on merit finally. The issue relating to bar under Section 49 of the Act shall not be decided again by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. However, other issues between the parties may be decided by him after hearing the parties. The petitioners will be at liberty to challenge the issue relating to bar under Section 49 of the Act, if ultimately the case is decided against them on merit.

¶15

Both the parties are appearing before this Court. They may appear before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 5th October, 2015. The Deputy Director of Consolidation thereafter fix a date for hearing in the revision according to the convenience of the parties shall conclude it expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months thereafter."

¶16

The judgment of this Court rendered in the Case of Banwari Lal (supra) has attained finality.

¶17

Nothing to the contrary has been shown to the Court.

¶18

In such view of the matter, I find that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation impugned in this petition dated 08.01.2018 is in direct violation of the direction given and adjudication made by this Court in the judgment rendered on 24.09.2015. The impugned order dated 24.09.2015 is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

¶19

The matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra.

¶20

Considering the fact that the matter has been agitated and reagitated a number of times following directions are issued to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra.

¶21

(1) The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra shall frame issues for decision raised by the parties, in particular with consent of parties before this Court following issues are being framed which shall also be decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation:

¶22

(A) Whether the authorities in the first round of consolidation had noticed and ruled that the share of Dhanwanti in the

¶23

disputed parcels of land was liable to be recorded in favour of Sarvan Kumar on the foot of sale deed as well as in addition by way of inheritance? If yes, to what extent?

¶24

(B) Whether the Consolidation Authorities subsequent to consolidation proceedings erred in law by neglecting the aforesaid findings of the Consolidation Authorities in the first consolidation proceedings?

¶25

(2) The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra shall return a specific findings from the pleadings, material and evidence in the record in regard to the aforesaid issues.

¶26

(3) The exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶27

(4) All the parties to the lis are directed to cooperate in the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra with a view to ensuring that the proceedings are concluded within the time stipulated above.

¶28

(5) The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra shall not grant any adjournment to the parties. In case adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice the parties seeking adjournment shall pay costs of not less than Rs. 2,000/-

¶29

(6) The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra if necessary shall proceed with the hearing of the case on day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated time line of four months for deciding the case is strictly adhered to.

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶31

Order Date :- 16.3.2021 Nadeem Ahmad

Banwari Lal and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banwari Lal and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punnu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Asare and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 7 Others

Mohd. Saeed Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 34 Others

Isahan Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Anil Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Sushma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others