Dismissed

Heera Lal and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and Ors.

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2024WRIB/8147/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a remand simplicitor order does not terminate proceedings and is interlocutory. It declined to interfere with the 2007 order remanding a land consolidation dispute and dismissed the petition against the 2018 order rejecting recall due to lapse of time and finality on merits. The Court directed expeditious conclusion by the authority.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Consolidation Officer directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously.

Heera Lal and Ors. Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17143

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 8147 of 2019 Petitioner :- Heera Lal And Ors. Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sultanpur And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidya Bhushan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Vikram,Ashutosh Mishra,Mata Prasad Yadav,Prabhat Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

1. Heard.

¶6

Present petition has been filed for following main reliefs:

¶7

"i..) A writ order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing the impugned order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur in revision No. 602 U/S 48 of U.P.C.H. Act and order dated 17.1.2007 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur contained as Annexure no. 1&2 to this writ petition. ii..) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding the opp. Parties not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute."

¶8

The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur (in short "DDC, Sultanpur"), vide impugned order dated 17.01.2007, passed in Revision No. 602 (Abhiram Vs. Hiralal and Ors.), under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"), remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer, after considering the various aspects of the case including the fact(s) (i) that dispute related to khata nos. 46 and 183 between the same parties is pending consideration before the Consolidation Officer concerned in terms of order dated 26.03.2003 and (ii) vide order dated 26.03.2003, three appeals were decided and only one revision i.e. Revision No. 602 was filed challenging the order dated 26.03.2003 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The relevant portion of the order,

¶9

on reproduction, reads as under:

¶10

" ममननददननपकनकनतकरपरववचचरवकयचतथचपतचवललकचअवलदकनवकयचजजससन वववदतहदतचहहवकअपललवमयचदबचहरथलतथचसहचयकचकबनदलअजधकचरलकन सनन 1974 कनआदनशकनववरदपसत ककगयलहह।खचतचससखयच 46 व 183 कन समबनधममभलसहचयकचकबनदलअजधकचरलदचरचवदनचसक 30-8-74 कदआदनश पचररतवकयचगयचथचजजसकनववरदवमयचदबचहरअपलल 29-10-89 कदपसत कक गयलथल।इनअपललनममबनददबसतअजधकचरलचकबनदलदचरचवमयचदकचलचभदनकर अपललसवलकचरककगयलतथचसहचयकचकबनदलअजधकचरलकचआदनशवनरसतकरकन वचदकदचकबनदलअजधकचरलसतरपरवनररयहनततपतयचववतरतवकयचगयचजद चकबनदलअजधकचरलनयचयचलयममववचचरचधलनहह।यहववपकलभलसवलकचरकरतनहमवक खचतचससखयच 46 व 183 कचवचदचकबनदलअजधकचरलनयचयचलयममववचचरचधलनहह। बनददबसतअजधकचरलचकबनदलदचरचअनयददअपललनममवदनचसक 26-3-2003 कदजद वमयचदकचलचभदनकरवचदपतयचववतरतवकयचगयचउसकनववरदहलरचलचलआवद दचरचकदईवनगरचनलपसत नहहककगयलहह।इनहहपकनकनबलचखचतचससखयच 123 कच भलवववचदहह।अततजबददखचतनकनबचरनममवववचदचकबनदलअजधकचरलकनसमकचल रहचहहतदयहउवचतपतलतहदतचहहददननपकनकनबलचवववचदकचवनसतचररगतरददष कनआधचरपरहदजचयजहचसददननपकअपनचअपनचसचकयपसत करसकनकयनवक सहचयकचकबनदलअजधकचरलकनसमकवकसलपककचसचकयनहहहदतच।सनन 1974 ममवनगरचनलकतचरकचनचबचजलगहदनचभलउनकनशपथपतममजसदहह।

¶11

अततवनगरचनलसवलकचरककजचतलहह।सहचयकबनददबसतअजधकचरलचकबनदलकच आदनशवदनचसक 6-5-2006 वसहचयकचकबनदलअजधकचरलकचआदनशवदनचसक 20-974 बचबतखचतचससखयच 123 वनरसतवकयचजचतचहहतथचवनगरचनलकतचरकदवमयचद कचलचभपदचनवकयचजचतचहह।वचदचकबनदलअजधकचरलकदवनरसतचररहनतत पतयचववतरतवकयचजचतचहहवकवनपकनकदसतनकरतथचसचकयआवदकचअवसरदनकर वचदकचवनसतचररगतरददषकनआधचरपरकरम।पकगरचकबनदलअजधकचरलअ . अ . पथमकननयचयचलयममवदनचसक 13-2-2007 कदउपससथतहन। "

¶12

Vide impugned order dated 26.11.2018 passed in Revision No. 602 on an application for recall of final order dated 17.01.2007, which was filed with a prayer to recall the order dated 17.01.2007 and restore the case to its original number, the DDC, Sultanpur rejected the said application after observing that order dated 17.01.2007 was passed on merits and the matter is pending consideration before Consolidation Officer and the application has been filed for recall of order after about eight years. The relevant portion of the order, on reproduction, reads as under:

¶13

" ममननउपससथतउभयपकनकनववदचनअजधवकचओसकनतकरसकदसतनचतथचपतचवलल कचअवलदकनवकयच।

¶14

पतचवललकन अवलदकनसनसपषहहवकयहवनगरचनलशलअवभरचमआवददचरच बनददबसतअजधकचरलचकबनदलदचरचपचररतआदनशवदनचसक 6-5-06 कनववरदइस नयचयचलयममपसत ककगयलथलऔरबनददबसतअजधकचरलचकबनदलकनसमक अपललसहचयकचकबनदलअजधकचरलदचरचपचररतआदनशवदनचसक 20-9-74 कनववरद पसत ककगयलथलबनददबसतअजधकचरलचकबनदलदचरचअपललकदवमयचदकनवबनदत परहलवदनचसक 6-5-06 कदवनरसतकरवदयचगयचथचऔरइसलआदनशकनववरदयह वनगरचनलपसत ककगयलथलवनगरचनलकचवनसतचररमनरनपपवचरजधकचरलदचरचददननपकन

¶15

कनववदचनअजधवकचओसकनतकरसकदसतनननकनपशचचतनवदनचसक 17-1-07 कदवकयच गयचथचऔरइसलआदनशकनववरदयहबचजदचयरचपचथरनचपतपसत वकयचगयचहह यहचसपरयहउलनखनलयहहवकततकचललनउपससचचलकचकबनदलदचरचवनगरचनलकद सवलकचरकरकनवचदकदपतयचववतरतवकयचगयचथचतथचवचदपतयचववतरतवकयनजचनन कनलगभग 8 वषरसतकवचदचकबनदलअजधकचरलकननयचयचलयममगवतमचनरहचऔर उसकनबचदशलससतदषआवददचरचयहबचजदचयरचपचथरनचपतवदयचगयचहहचपसवक ततकचललनउपससचचलकचकबनदलदचरचवचदकदपतयचववतरतकरननकनपपवरहलपकनमम मधयखचतचससखयच 46 व 183 कनसमबनधममवचदववचचरचधलनथचऔरइनहहपकनकन मधयखचतचससखयच 123 कचभलवववचदहहऔरनयचयककसतलभतचकनजलयनततकचललन उपससचचलकचकबनदलदचरचइसपकररकदभलचकबनदलअजधकचरलकनयहच पतयचववतरतकरननववषयकआदनशपचररतवकयचगयचथचऔरपशनगतआदनशउभय पकनकदसतनकरपचररतवकयचगयचहहपकनकनपचससचकयएवससतनवचईकचअवसर पचपहहततकचललनउपससचचलकचकबनदलदचरचववजधससगतरपसनआदनशपचररत वकयचगयचहहजजसममवकसलहसतकनपककआवशयकतचनहहहहबचजदचयरचपचथरनचपत वनरसतवकयनजचननयदगयहह।

¶16

आदनश

¶17

उपरदकवववनचनचकनआधचरपरबचजदचयरचपचथरनचपतवनरसतवकयचजचतचहहपक वदनचसक 12-12-18 कदचकबनदलअजधकचरलसदरपथमकननयचयचलयममउपससथत हद।इसनयचयचलयककपतचवललबचदआवशयककचयरवचहलरचजसवअवभलनखचगचरमम असवकतककजचयन। "

¶18

In so far as the order dated 17.01.2007 is concerned, the same is a remand simplicitor order and the reasons recorded for remanding the case therein are just and proper. It is for the reason that the dispute pertaining to khata nos. 46, 123 and 183 between the same parties would be adjudicated by the Consolidation Officer.

¶19

It is settle principle of law that the order of remand does not terminate the proceedings. The proceedings are still alive. The parties to the litigation are having full opportunity to adduce evidence before the Authority concerned. It is also settled principal of law that the order of remand simplicitor is an interlocutory order and it does not terminate the proceedings, as observed by this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Lucknow reported in 2017 (134) RD 25 . Reference has also been made of the judgment passed in the case of Vijay Nath and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and another, reported in [2019 (9) ADJ 85], and the judgment dated 10.02.2023 passed by this Court in WritB No.108 of 2023 (Angad Pratap Singh and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others) .

¶20

Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order dated 17.01.2007.

¶21

The order dated 26.11.2018 is also just and proper. It is for the reason that final order passed by the consolidation authorities, after hearing the parties, on merits, is not liable to be recalled.

¶22

Taking note of the aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶23

It is expected from the Consolidation Officer concerned to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, in accordance with law and strictly in terms of the order of remand.

¶24

It is open for the petitioners to prefer application seeking interim protection before the authority concerned and in case such an application is moved the same shall also be considered and decided in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶25

Order Date :- 26.2.2024/Mohit Singh/-

¶26

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

Heera Lal and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heera Lal and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haushila Prasad Vishwakarma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 10 Others

Kamlesh Kumar and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Lakhimpur Kheri and 3 Others

Omkar Vs Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Barabanki and Another

Dinesh Kumar Vs the Additional Commissioner Ayodhya Division,Ayodhya and 3 Others

Bade Lal Vs Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Amethi District Amethi and Another

Smt. Jaiki Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others