Disposed

Jagnnath v. Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda and Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024/653/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a possession dispute over plots 455 and 456, the Allahabad High Court held that the Revenue authority's rejection of inspection objections was flawed due to factual contradictions. The Court did not examine the case on merits but directed the Deputy Director of Consolidation to conduct a fresh spot inspection within 15 days in the presence of parties, reserving the right to decide the revision

What did the court decide?

Order dated 02.05.2024 set aside for consideration after fresh inspection; DDC directed to hold fresh spot inspection within 15 days.

Jagnnath Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Chief… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45162

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 653 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Jagnnath

¶5

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation/ Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sangeeta Sonkar,Ravindra Nath Pandey

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta,Shikha Srivastava,Suneel Kumar Singh Kalhans

¶7

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Pandey learned counsel for the State-respondent no.1 and Sri S.K. Singh Kalhans learned counsel for the private respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶9

Sri Kalhans submits that primarily the dispute is between the petitioner and the contesting respondent nos.2 and 3 and all other parties are formal. This statement is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, in so far as the respondent nos.17 and 18 are concerned they are also real brothers of the petitioner but since their rights have not been affected hence they have been impleaded as formal respondent.

¶10

Since the contesting parties are duly represented before this Court, accordingly, with the consent of parties, the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself without calling for counter.

¶11

The petitioner has approached this Court with the limited prayer that the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by DDC, Gonda. in so far as it rejected the objections of the petitioner against an inspection report, which was called for by DDC suo moto vide its order dated 02.02.2024, has been rejected.

¶12

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute relates to the fact that the petitioner is in occupation of plot no.455 whereas the contesting respondent are in possession of the plot no.456.

¶13

There is a chak road which demarcates the plots of the petitioner as well as the private respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶14

The dispute as to whether and to what extent the respective

¶15

parties are in possession was being adjudicated and DDC on its own called for an inspection report which was submitted by the SOC. Even though the petitioner had filed his objections thereto but the same has not been cogently appreciated as a result, a glaring mistake, which was indicated in the report as it did not show the house of the petitioner being on plot no.455 and in such circumstances, the petitioner had prayed that a fresh inspection be called. The objections did not find favour with the DDC and the request for a fresh inspection was turned down. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the said order.

¶16

Submission is that since the petitioner is in occupation and he has his residence over plot no.454, the SOC who had conducted the inspection ought to have shown the same on the map. It is urged that in order to unnecessarily favour the party the said house of petitioner has not been shown whereas the house of the other parties have been indicated. In the aforesaid circumstances where the correct factual possession has not been placed before DDC, it would further prejudice the rights of the petitioner at the time of final hearing. In such circumstances the petitioner has no option but to approach this Court.

¶17

Sri Kalhans and Sri Hemant Pandey learned counsel for the private respondent nos.2 and 3 and the State respectively submitted that the order impugned is merely interlocutory in nature and does not decide the rights of the parties. Under such circumstances, the petition may not be entertained, however, it has also been urged that the endeavour of the petitioner is to delay the proceeding and therefore the said petition has been filed.

¶18

The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

¶19

A pointed query was put to the counsel for the private respondent that under what circumstances, the DDC required spot inspection which led to filing of the report dated 13.03.2023. Apparently, it has been informed that there is a dispute as to who is in possession of plot no.455 and whether the contesting private respondents have encroached upon the land of the petitioner.

¶20

Be that as it may, the basic issue regarding this aspect can only be fairly adjudicated if the spot position is clarified. There appears to be certain contradiction in the report which was submitted by the SOC and the site plan which has been brought on record by the petitioner along with his rejoinder affidavit.

¶21

At this stage, learned Standing counsel as well as Sri Kalhans submit that in case, if the Court provides for a time span within which a fresh inspection can be made also some restrictions be placed on the petitioner so that he cooperate in the proceedings and the matter can be finally decided. There is no objection to the fresh inspection.

¶22

Considering the stand of the respective parties and considering the dispute which relates to the possession of the parties in respect of plot no.455 and 456, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice can be met by calling for a fresh report. In this regard the DDC shall within 15 days from today get a fresh inspection done in presence of parties on the date and time duly notified to the respective parties in advance. In case, if the petitioner does not cooperate in the inspection on requisite date and time the authority shall be well within its right to proceed and get the inspection done. Once the said report is placed before the DDC,he shall after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties shall consider and decide the revision itself within further period of 5 weeks but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶23

Subject to the aforesaid, the order dated 2.5.2024 shall not be given effect to or to be considered by the revisional authority while deciding the revision on merits.

¶24

It is also made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and it has been noticed only in context with the inspection report concerned.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. Costs are made easy.

¶26

Order Date :- 3.7.2024 Harshita

¶27

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

Jagnnath v. Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagnnath v. Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda 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

Mukesh Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Chore @ Munsareef Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Arun Kumar Gautam @ Arun Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Deptt.of Home and Another

Pakka Ltd., Ayodhya Thru. Legal Head 4 Company Secy., Sachin Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Mulayam Yadav vs the State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Charu Mishra vs Union of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Deptt.Thru. Its Prin. Secy. and 5 Others