The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order regarding chak allotment under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Court held that non-impleadment of the revision beneficiary and the significant delay rendered the petition untenable.
Writ petition held to fail and is dismissed.
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. - 7
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 540 of 2021
Petitioner :- Jaylal
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Veerendra Kumar Shukla,Ramendra Pal Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner who is available on audio/video link. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 3 is also available.
Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 13.6.2017, passed by respondent-1 Deputy Director of Consolodation, Sambhal, whereby revision preferred by Homaniya @ Homwati, has been allowed.
At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of present writ petition. He submits that order impugned in present writ petition has been filed in revision preferred by Homaniya @ Homwati. However, Homaniya @ Homwati has not been impleaded as respondent in present writ petition. It is next contended that order impugned in present writ petition was passed on 13.6.2017, whereas present writ petition has been filed before this Court in February, 2021 i.e after expiry of a period of more than three years and seven months. The delay/laches in filing present writ petition has not been sufficiently explained. He has then invited attention of Court to the averments made in paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of the writ petition and on basis thereof, he contends that cause shown for explaning laches in filing present writ petition is neither sufficient nor truthful.As such, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for petitioner on the other hand contends that petitioner was not impleaded as a party in revision filed by Homaniya @ Homwati. he has invited attention of Court to the memo revision filed by Homaniya @ Homwati. He contends that one Jai Pal @ Sardar was impleaded as respondent-3 in revision whereas, description of petitioner Jaylal, son of Sarwan @ Sarnam. Consequently, no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioner. Thus order passed by respondent-1 Deputy Director of Consolidation is in complete violation of principles of natural justice. Impugned order has caused serious
prejudice to petitioner, inasmuch as chaks allotted to him has been disturbed.
Learned Standing Counsel has then invited the attention of Court to the impugned order passed by respondent-1. He contends that revisionist Homaniya @ Homwati was allotted four chaks. Under the scheme of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, normaly three chaks should be allotted. In case allotment of fourth chak is inevitable then reason for same should be recorded. There is nothing on record to explain the above. Depury Director of Consolidation by means of impugned order has reduced the number of chaks allotted to Homaniya @ Homwati from 4 to 3. It is further contended that mere violation of principles of natural justice is not a sufficient ground to quash an order. Prejudice caused on account of non compliance of principles of natural justice should also be established. Upon perusal of ground raised in present writ petition, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to petitioner with reference to section 19 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Having heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing counsel and upon perusal of record, this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the order impugned. Moreover, present writ petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. In compliance of order passed by respondent-1 Deputy Director of Consolidation, the chaks must have been carved out on the spot. It will be wholly inequitable to disturb the allotment after expiry of more than three years and seven months.
In view of above, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain present writ petition. Writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.7.2021 Arshad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the lack of impleadment of the person who availed the revision order and the significant delay in filing.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jaylal
Deputy Director Of Consolidation
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
