Partly allowed

Sita v. D.D.C. and Others

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2023WRIB/4596/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition regarding land consolidation objections. It held that the Revisional Authority, having found an order ex-parte but deciding on merit without addressing prior findings, ought to have remitted the matter. Considering the petition's long pendency, the court set aside the impugned order and remitted the revision petition to the Deputy Director of Consolidation fo

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed but the Revisional order set aside with directions to remit the revision petition to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to be concluded within three months. Substitution applicati

Sita Vs D.D.C. and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:214190

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4596 of 1997

¶4

Petitioner :- Sita Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- C.M. Yadav,Yatindra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Faujdar Rai,Rahul Sahai,Rinkoo Keshari,S.N.S.Yadav,Sankatha Rai,Smt. Kamla Yadav,Suresh Chandra Varma

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.12 of 2023

¶7

Heard.

¶8

Substitution application is allowed.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner is directed to carry out necessary changes in cause title during the course of day.

¶10

Order on memo of petition

¶11

Heard Sri Yatindra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for contesting respondents at length.

¶12

This writ petition is pending since 1997. This is a proceeding arising out of second consolidation proceeding on basis of objections filed by petitioner. The proceedings were initiated under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 wherein 11 issues were framed.

¶13

The Consolidation Officer has considered at length the rival submissions and returned findings, rejecting the claim of petitioner in regard to khata No.26, 27, 50, 52 and 61 of land in question. Thereafter petitioner filed an appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation which was allowed by an order dated 05.10.1995 and it was directed that name of petitioner be recorded on Khata No.26, 27, 50, 52 and 61. The relevant part of said order is reproduced hereinafter :-

¶14

" इस ्ቚककार उ्ሹ ससुलहनकामका खखेलकावन कखे वकाररसकान भभी पकाबन्द हह। अभभले ख भीय सकाकቌኚ् ቌኚयोሱ कखे अवललोकन सखे यह बकात स्प्ቖ हलोतभी हहै भक चकबन्दभी अधधिककारभी कखे आदखेश भदनक ा क 18-7-59 कका अमलदरकामद अभभले ख ोሱ मम नहीሻ हलो सकका। पपूवर चकबन्दभी मम लकालचन्द व रकाम आशभीष कका नकाम खकाररज करनखे कका आदखेश अनन्तम रूप सखे हलो चसुकका हहै। रकाम आशभीष व लकाल चन्द कखे भवरू्ቍ धिकारका 49 जलो च०अ० भभी लकागपू हलोतका हहै। लकाल चन्द व रकाम आशभीष नखे भदनक ा क 20-9-66 कलो नई गकाटका साሪख्यका 226/0-9-19, 235 अ /0-7-18 तथका 235 ब /3-14-1 कका रधजस्टरर कबकालका बहक बहैजनकाथ , दखेवनकाथ , रकाम ववृक पसु्ቔगण अधलयकार , रकाम बचन पसु्ቔ दपूधिनकाथ कखे हक मम कर भदयका। जब खखेलकावन यका उनकखे वकारसकान कका हक हभी नहीሻ रह जकातका हहै तलो कखेबकालका करनखे कका क्यका औभचत्य हहै। भपूभमधिरभी स्वत्व ककी मक ा ग कखे साሪबाሪधि मम सभीतका अपभीलकतकार कका दकावका एक पकभीय रूप सखे भरगभी हहआ धजसकका अमलदभीमद आधिकार वषर ककी खततौनभी पर भकयका गयका हहै। उपरलो्ሹ आदखेश हलो भक परगनका भदनक ा क 22-8-75 एक पकभीय हलोनखे कखे बकावजपूद भभी पकोሱ कखे मध्य ्ቚक ा ग न्यकाय कका ्ቚभकाव रखतका हहै।

¶15

प्ቔकावलभी पर उपलब्धि धलधखत सकाቌኚयोሱ एवाሪ मतौधखक सकाቌኚयोሱ तथका उपलब्धि रसभीदकात कका अवललोकन करनखे कखे उपरकान्त मम इस भनष्कषर पर पहहुሺचतका हहाሪ भक चकबन्दभी अधधिककारभी नखे जलो आदखेश पकाररत भकयका हहै , उन्होሱनखे अभभले ख भीय सकाቌኚयोሱ कका सकावधिकानभीपपूवरक अध्ययन नहीሻ भकयका। अपभीलकतकार ककी मक ा गोሱ पर भवचकार करतखे हहए मह इस नतभीजखे पर पहहुሺचतका हहुሺ भक उसककी मक ा ग उभचत एवाሪ न्यकाय साሪगत हहै। अपभील स्वभीककार यलोग्य पकाई गई। "

¶16

Thereafter a recall application filed by petitioner against order dated 05.10.1995 was rejected by Appellate Authority, vide order dated 21.11.1995.

¶17

In the aforesaid circumstances, three revision petition were filed at the behest of contesting respondents. The Revisional Authority has recorded the rival submissions at length and finally concluded that order passed by Appellate Authority was not only ex-parte but was contrary to law since both parties were bound by provisions of Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since the Revisional Authority has categorically returned a finding that order passed by Appellate Court was ex-parte, therefore, it has to be remitted to Appellate Authority to decide afresh.

¶19

Learned counsel further submits that order dated 18.7.1959 passed in first consolidation proceeding was not implemented.

¶20

Learned Senior Counsel has vehemently opposed the above submission and has drawn attention of this Court on various parts of orders passed by Consolidation Officer, by Appellate Court as well as by Revisional Court.

¶21

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in the garb of objections, petitioner has tried to re-open the case and even in the above referred khata that contesting respondents have purchased a certain part of aforesaid referred khatas during an auction proceedings and entries to that effect have already been entered in revenue records in the name of contesting respondents.

¶22

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that order passed by a detailed and reasoned order passed by Consolidation Officer was very lightly interfered with, by Appellate Authority, and Revisional Authority has only cured the defect and error committed by Appellate Authority.

¶23

Heard counsel for parties at length and perused the record.

¶24

I have carefully perused the order passed by Consolidation Officer and it has been rightly pointed out that all the issues have been dealt in detail.

¶25

I have further perused the order passed by Appellate Authority and it appears that Appellate Authority and after recording the rival submissions has concentrated mainly on one issue that order dated 18.7.1959 passed by Consolidation Officer in the first consolidation proceeding was not implemented in its entirety in revenue records and the effect of Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will be followed.

¶26

The Settlement Officer Consolidation has also referred the order dated 22.8.1975 that despite ex-parte order has legal consequence of res judicata at this stage, it would be appropriate to mention that Consolidation Officer while rejecting the claim of petitioner by an order dated 12.07.1989 has returned a finding that order dated 22.08.1975 was appeared to be a document surrounded

¶27

by circumstances of doubts.

¶28

I have also carefully perused the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and as referred above, the Revisional Authority has referred rival submissions of counsel for parties at length and as referred above has returned a specific finding that orders passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 21.11.1995 was an ex-parte order, however, further decided the case on merit that objections filed by petitioner were barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

¶29

In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that in case, the Revisional Authority came to conclusion that order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation was an exparte, it ought to have remitted the case to Appellate Authority or in case, it proceeded to decide the case on its own, it must have dealt with every aspect of case including the findings returned by Consolidation Officer as well as by Settlement Officer Consolidation to reverse the order passed by Appellate Authority, however, as discussed above, the said process was not undertaken.

¶30

In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is of the view that matter has to be remitted to Appellate Authority, however, I find merit in the argument of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents that the writ petition is pending since 1997 and that presently Revisional Authority has wide power to consider the case on merit at length, therefore instead of remanding the matter to Settlement Officer Consolidation, the Court is of opinion that order impugned be set aside and matter is remitted to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision petition afresh ordered accordingly.

¶31

It is further directed that while deciding the revision petition the concerned Authority shall take note of effect of order dated 18.7.1959 i.e. whether it was completely implemented or not as well as that findings returned by Consolidation Officer in regard to order dated 22.08.1975 passed in proceeding initiated under Section 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and land purchase during auction, if any.

¶32

This writ petition is accordingly, disposed of .

¶33

The aforesaid proceeding shall be concluded within a period of three months from today.

¶34

Order Date :- 7.11.2023/P. Pandey

¶35

Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sita v. D.D.C. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita v. D.D.C. and 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

Ashok Kumar and 3 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 8 Others

Ghan Shyam Singh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Rajesh Kumar Shukla and 45 Others Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Panna Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Charan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jaibir and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others