Disposed

Nand Ram Verma and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024/128/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Consolidation appeal filed after eighteen years with delay-condonation application. Settlement Officer decided to consider limitation along with merits given the fraud plea; Deputy Director of Consolidation affirmed. High Court found petitioners' apprehension misfounded, disposed of the writ, directing reasoned decision of their objections.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Settlement Officer directed to decide appeal expeditiously with reasoned speaking orders on limitation, joinder and certified-copy objections.

Nand Ram Verma and Others Vs Deputy… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50887

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 128 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Nand Ram Verma And Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Bahraich And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Shukla,Shivam Srivastava,Sushant Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Afzal Hasan,Pankaj Gupta,Shivang Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents; Shri Tushar Gupta, who is appearing under the authority of Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. None has put in appearance on behalf of the private-respondents despite the names of Shri Shivang Dwivedi and Shri Afzal Hasan, Advocates is printed in the Additional Cause-List.

¶7

Under challenge is the order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was rejected and the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 13.09.2022 has been affirmed.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on the basis of a compromise, an order was passed by the Additional Consolidation Officer. The said order was never challenged by the private-respondents but after about eighteen years, an appeal was preferred before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation along with an application seeking condonation of delay. This appeal was objected by the present petitioners by filing their objections including stating that the appeal suffered from the vice of being hugely delayed as well as the fact that it did not have a certified copy of the impugned order and even appropriate parties have not been impleaded.

¶9

Another application was moved by the petitioners that the issue of limitation must be decided as preliminary issue before considering the appeal on merits.

¶10

Upon considering the aforesaid applications, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by the order dated 18.07.2022 disposed of the application holding that on one hand the parties

¶11

had preferred an appeal and raised an issue of fraud and had filed the appeal once they become aware of the proceedings and on the other hand, the present petitioners had raised an objection that the issue of maintainability in context with the delay be decided first.

¶12

It is noticing the various contentions that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation came to the conclusion that since the issue of fraud has been raised, accordingly, the aspect regarding the delay can be considered along with the matter on merits and with the aforesaid observations, he directed to the parties to be present on 27.09.2022 for hearing the appeal along with all other issues.

¶13

Being aggrieved, the petitioners assailed the same before the revisional Court and the revisional Court as well echoed the same sentiments as expressed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by means of the order dated 21.11.2023 rejecting the revision at the admission stage and directed the parties to appear on 11.12.2023.

¶14

The petitioners have preferred the instant petition in January, 2024 assailing the said order wherein this Court had issued notices to the private-respondents, who are represented by their counsel but are not present at the time of call of the case.

¶15

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the issue regarding maintainability should have been decided first and he has also expressed his apprehension that by means of the order dated 18.07.2022 the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has disposed of his application and directed the parties to be heard on merits and in case if he had not decided the objection of the petitioners then it should have been indicated in the order. The manner in which the order has been passed indicates that the matter has been fixed before the appellate Court to be heard on merits and explicitly it amounts to rejection of the plea raised by the petitioners and this has also been done by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and, therefore, the petitioners have been deprived of being heard and findings in respect of the objections raised by them have not been recorded i.e. the objections of the petitioners have been rejected without disclosing any reason.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, the apprehension as expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be misfounded for the reasons that a perusal of the order dated 18.07.2022, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has noticed that the issue of limitation per se is not pure question of law and

¶17

as one of the parties has raised an issue of fraud, this can be considered and decided along with the merits.

¶18

Once such an observation is there in the order, it is not appropriate to prejudge that the objections as raised by the petitioners have been rejected. The same can be affirmed by the revisional Court as well. Hence, this Court does not find that there is any merit in this petition at this stage as the apprehension as expressed by the petitioners is misfounded. This Court is not inclined to intervene in the impugned order. It is however provided that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties shall consider and decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible needless to say that the objections as raised by the petitioners relating to limitation, joinder of parties and nonavailability of certified copies shall be considered and decided by a reasoned and a speaking order.

¶19

It is also clarified that the plea as raised by the petitioners in this petition has not been examined by this Court on merits and the same shall be considered and decided by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in accordance with law.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of .

¶21

Order Date :- 26.7.2024 Rakesh/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nand Ram Verma and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Ram Verma and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ambika Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home

Smt. Shail Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Roop Narayan and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer Unnao and 7 Others

Santosh Kumar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Ayodhya and Others

Executive Engineer, Provincial P.W.D., Orai, Jalaun vs M/S Shanti Construction Partnership Firm Registered Under Indian Partnership Act

C/M Ram Dular Ram Bahal Maurya Siksha Prasar Samiti, Thru. Manager Namely Prem Prakash Maurya vs Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and Chits Ayodhya and 3 Others