Dismissed

Mool Chand and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and Others

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2024/545/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a revisional order remitting a land consolidation dispute to the officer because the appellate authority ignored the private respondents' failure to participate in prior appeal hearings. The Court dismissed the petition, finding the remittal discretionary and justified due to past conduct, while imposing a Rs. 25,000 deposit and undertaking on the respondents to ensure ex

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; respondents directed to deposit Rs. 25,000 and furnish undertaking against unnecessary adjournments and protracted litigation.

Mool Chand and Others Vs Deputy Director of… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55802

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 545 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Mool Chand And Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Bahraich And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Raman Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned who has put in appearance on behalf of private respondent nos. 2 to 12.

¶7

Considering the issue involved in the instant petition, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶8

The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich whereby the revision preferred by the private respondents has been allowed setting aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer of Consolidation remitting the matter back to the court of Consolidation Officer vide order dated 21.12.2023.

¶9

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute is pending between the parties since long. A compromise had been arrived at in between the parties which was assailed by the private respondents by filing an appeal, however, despite various opportunities granted by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the private respondents did not appear to press their appeal and this was clearly noticed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation while dismissing the appeal on 21.01.2023.

¶10

It is aggrieved against the said order that the private respondents have preferred a revision and the Revisional Court taking a lenient view has set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation remitting the matter to the Court of Consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶11

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while remitting the matter and setting aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not taken note of the conduct and the fact that several opportunities were granted to the private respondents and despite the same, they did not participate nor even came forward to press their appeal, in such circumstances, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not justified.

¶12

Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 2 to 12 on the other hand submits that may be the conduct of the private respondents may have been a little blameworthy but the fact remains that they were not sufficiently served nor they had ample notice to contest the proceedings and in such circumstances where an opportunity has been granted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, such being a discretionary order is not open to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

He further submits that the private respondents are ready to give an undertaking that they shall not protract the litigation any further and shall cooperate in early hearing.

¶14

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as from the perusal of the material on record, it could not be disputed by the private respondents that themselves had preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. As it is several dates were fixed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation permitting the private respondents to file their written submissions and argue the appeal on merits but despite ample time and repeated opportunities, neither the written submissions were filed nor the private respondents contested the appeal which came to be dismissed.

¶15

In the aforesaid circumstances where the Revisional Court has set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and remitted the matter for decision afresh by means of order dated 21.12.2023, which is purely a discretionary order, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to interfere in the present petition. Since the past conduct of the private respondents has not been encouraging and they have been misusing the process of law by protracting the litigation, hence, this Court deems appropriate to put the private respondents to certain terms and they are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with the Consolidation Officer, Bahraich within a period of two weeks from today. The private respondents shall also furnish an undertaking that they shall not

¶16

seek any unnecessary adjournments except in exceptional circumstances and shall cooperate in early hearing. The Consolidation Officer, Bahraich shall place the aforesaid deposit of Rs. 25,000/- in an interest bearing account and shall endevour to decide the proceedings as expeditiously as possible say preferrably within a period of six months from the date, a certified copy of this order is placed before the Authority concerned. In case if the Consolidation Officer arrives at a conclusion that the private respondents have not been cooperating for early disposal, he shall be free to forfeit the aforesaid sum deposited and remit the amount to the District Magistrate who shall use the aforesaid amount for legal aid services and if the private respondents do not breach the aforesaid undertaking then at the end of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, Bahraich, the amount may be released forthwith in favour of the private respondents.

¶17

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall consider and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶18

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 Asheesh

¶20

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

Mool Chand and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mool Chand 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gajraj Vs Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Talukdar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Sheela Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Usha Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue and Others

Smt. Akhtar Jahan Begum vs Waqf Mirza Abid Ali Beg (Waqf Alal Aulad), Waqf No.52, Ex.-Ii Thru. Mutawalli Riyaz Ahmad and Ors.

Nand Lal vs Shri Raj Kapoor , Nayab Tehsildar / Special Land Acquisition Officer Ambedkarnager