Dismissed

Moti Lal v. Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation,Shrawasti and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 May 2024/287/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged under Article 227 an order staying his previous directions due to a delay that was not condoned. The Court held that the proposal to stay the order was interlocutory and the revision was not maintainable against it.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; leave granted to file objections within two weeks before the trial court.

Moti Lal Vs Collector/District Deputy Director of… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37657

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 287 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Moti Lal Respondent :- Collector/District Deputy Director Of Consolidation,Shrawasti And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohan Singh,Mohan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shrish Kumar Gaur

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

C. M. Application No.s 5, 6 and 7 of 2024 - for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and substitution of legal heirs of the petitioner.

¶7

Heard Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 3 and Sri S. K. Gaur for respondent No.s 1 and 2.

¶8

Despite time having been granted by the Court to file objections to the aforesaid applications no objection has been filed.

¶9

The applications are accordingly allowed. The delay is condoned. Abatement, if any, is set aside. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out the substitution during the course of day.

¶10

Order on memo of the petition.

¶11

Heard Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 3 and Sri S. K. Gaur for respondent No.s 1 and 2.

¶12

By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 29.1.2020 passed by Consolidation Officer where on the application preferred by respondent No.3 he has stayed the operation of his previous order dated 30.4.2019. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 29.1.2020 had filed a revision before Collector/ District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shravasti who has rejected the said revision as not maintainable in as much as it was interlocutory order and was not cognizable in the revisional proceedings.

¶13

The facts in brief in the present case is that the petitioner had purchased the land of gata No.502 measuring area 3 acres 8.5 dismal situated in Village Dubkala, Pargana Bahraich, Tehsil

¶14

Ekauna, District Shrawasti by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.5.1991 and has also taken possession of the said land. He has further submitted that subsequent to the aforesaid sale deed his name was duly mutated in the revenue records. It has also been submitted that opposite party No.3 had filed a time barred restoration application on 27.12.2019 along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act which was considered by the Consolidation Officer and proceeded to stay his previous order dated 30.4.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay was not condoned and, hence, the order is illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

Against the interim order dated 29.1.2020 he had filed revision under Section 48 of the Act of 1953 which has been rejected on the ground of maintainability.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 29.1.2020 is illegal, arbitrary and without condoning the delay such an order could not have been passed.

¶17

Sri S. K. Gaur, on the other hand, submits that the proceedings are pending before Consolidation Officer and his application preferred is still under consideration where the petitioner has put in appearance and has filed his objection but at the first instance filed the revision which has been rejected on the ground of maintainability. He submits that the revision under Section 48 (4) would be maintainable only against a final decision passed by the trial court and not against an interlocutory order. He further submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and objections of the petitioner has yet to be filed before the trial court and considered by him.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶19

The proceeding which are subject matter of the present writ petition has arisen on account of an application given by opposite party No.3 on 27.12.2019 before the Consolidation Officer on which an interim order has been passed on 29.1.2020. A perusal of the order dated 29.1.2020 clearly indicates that it is an interlocutory order wherein the previous directions of the Consolidation Officer dated 30.4.2019 has been stayed. There is also not dispute with regard to legal position that any revision under Section 48 (4) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act is cognizable only when a dispute has been finally determined by the trial court and not against an interlocutory application.

¶20

Accordingly, revision against the order dated 29.1.2020 was not maintainable and has been rightly rejected by Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shrawasti. It was open for the petitioner to have moved appropriate application before the trial court itself in opposition to the application preferred by opposite party No.3 subsequent to which it was incumbent upon the trial court to have considered and decided the same.

¶21

Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the prayer as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. The petition being bereft of merits is accordingly dismissed.

¶22

However, it shall be open for the petitioner to file his objections within two weeks from today. In case, objections are filed by the petitioner the trial court shall proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously, say within a period of three months thereafter after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶23

The parties present before this Court undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the trial court and shall not take unnecessary adjournment.

¶24

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 16.5.2024 RKM.

¶26

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

Moti Lal v. Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation,Shrawasti and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moti Lal v. Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation,Shrawasti and 2 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

Salig Ram Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Sakir Ali Vs Board or Revenue, U.P. , Lucknow Thru. Its Chairman and Others

Phoola Devi Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad and Others

Prema Devi vs Mulema Devi

Rambeti and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and 4 Others

Saheela vs Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. 13 , Barabanki and Others