Phoola Devi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad and Others

Allahabad HC15 May 2024/515/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges an order recalling an ex-parte decision. The High Court found no infirmity in the lower authority's order condoning delay for a recall application. It dismissed the challenge but directed the authorities to conclude the revision within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed except for direction to revisional authorities to decide the pending revision within four months.

Phoola Devi Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37296

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 515 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Phoola Devi

¶5

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Faizabad And Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Diwakar Pratap Pandey,Rameshwar Tiwari

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶8

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶9

Heard Shri Diwakar Pratap Pandey, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and perused the material available on record.

¶10

In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

¶11

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad (Now Ayodhya) whereby he has allowed the Revision No. 2027 (Smt. Gurudei Vs. Ram Krishna) under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act.

¶12

The brief fact leading to the present petition are that the dispute in the present case pertains to Gata No. 136M area 8 biswa, 10 dhur situated at Harpur Jalalabad Pargana Maglasi, Tehsil Sohawal, District Faizabad, which was recorded in the name of Raja Ram (husband of Gurudei) Ram Sajivan son of Siyaram and Ramraj son of Badloo. The said property was ancestral and was recorded in the name of aforesaid three persons. it is stated that Ram Sajivan sold his share to Sant Prasad Verma son of Ghirrau Veram and Manoj Kumar son of

¶13

Parasuram on 09.07.2002.

¶14

The petitioner claims that she is the daughter of Gurudei, who had executed a Will deed in her favour before her death. On the basis of the said Will, the petitioner was substituted in place of Gurudei. In the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, considering the application filed by Ram Krishna and Ram Abhilakh directed deletion of name of Raja Ram of one third of the said property and directed adding of name of Ram Krishan son of Raja Ram and Ram Abhilakh son of Puddan as Bhumidhar by means of order dated 03.03.1987. Against the order dated 03.03.1987 Gurudei filed an appeal and the said appeal was dismissed by means of order dated 13.9.2002. Thereafter Gurudei filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad (Now Ayodhya) and the same was allowed by means of order dated 21.12.2005 and order dated 13.09.2002 and 3.3.1987 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for determination afresh on the basis of the merits. An application for recall was filed by respondent no. 4, which has been allowed by means of order dated 29.12.2023 whereby Deputy Director of Consolidation has condoned the delay in filing the recall application and has set aside ex-parte order dated 21.12.2005 and for deciding afresh after giving opportunity to all the parties concerned.

¶15

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that order dated 29.12.2023 is illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as, the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not consider the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to the fact that the private respondents had deliberately not put in appearance at a previous stage of the revision and allowed the matter to proceed ex-parte and once the order dated 21.12.2005 was passed, they filed an application for recall belatedly.

¶16

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

¶17

It is noticed that against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 03.03.1987, a revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation wherein notices were issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties had put in appearance but did not file written submission nor participated in the final disposal of the revision and consequently, the revision was decided ex-parte by means of order dated 21.12.2005. A recall application was filed by the opposite party no. 4 with few days delay, which has adequately been explained by the opposite parties and the recall application was allowed by means of order dated 29.12.2023 where the Deputy Director of Consolidation has condoned the delay in filing the recall application and has set aside the ex-parte order dated 21.12.2005. Now the revisional court had only considered the fact that the previous order dated 21.12.2005 was passed exparte and merely on account of the fact that it was passed exparte, he has given opportunity of hearing to the respondents. In the aforesaid circumstances, recalled its previous order dated 21.12.2005.

¶18

This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, inasmuch as there is no doubt that order dated 21.12.2005 was passed without hearing the private respondent, who immediately passing of the said order had put in appearance and moved an application for recall. The very fact that the application was filed within few days of the passing of the order dated 21.12.2005 demonstrate that the respondents were desirous of participating in the proceedings but due to certain reasons could not appear on the date of final hearing or file written submission as directed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

¶19

Now that the matter has to be heard afresh and in view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation where now the hearing would be concluded after hearing all the parties including the respondents. The fact that order dated 21.12.2005 was passed ex-parte has not been disputed by the petitioner.

¶20

The only anxiety expressed by the petitioner is that the said application has been filed merely to prolong and delay the revisional proceedings and submits that suitable directions may be issued to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.

¶21

In light of the above, no valid ground has been made out by the petitioner for interference in the order dated 29.12.2023. Accordingly, prayer made by the petitioner in this regard is rejected. However, the revisional authorities is directed to finally decide the revision with expedition say within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, there is no legal impediment.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this petition is disposed of.

¶23

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 15.5.2024 Virendra

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Phoola Devi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phoola Devi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Prity Pandey Vs Addl. Principal Judge,Court No. 2, Family Court, Lko. and Another

Krishna Devi and Another Vs Additional Civil Judge Junior Division / F.T.C. Gonda and 8 Others

Ghanshyam and Others Vs Addl. Commissioner (Administration Ii), Devi Patan Division, Gonda and Others

Salig Ram Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

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

Maya Devi Vs District Judge Distt. Sultanpur and 4 Others