Aqueel Ahmad and Others vs Deputy Director Consolidation, Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30984

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 112 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Aqueel Ahmad And Others

¶5

Respondent :- Deputy Director Consolidation, Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.Mohd Kazim,Syed Jamal Ahmad,Tajuddin Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ankit Singh,Veer Raghav Chaubey

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Ankit Singh, Advocate and Shri Veer Raghav Chaubey, Advocate, who appeared for the respondent no.3.

¶8

By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought the following main relief(s) :-

¶9

"(i) Issue a writ order of directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 8.1.2025 and order dated 21.7.2015 passed by the opposite party no.l as contained in annexure no.land 2 to this writ petition and as well as the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the opposite party no.2 as contained in annexure no 3 to this writ petition and the case may be sent back to the revisional court to decide the same on merits.

¶10

(ii) Issue a writ order or directions in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.3 not to create any hindrance in the peaceful possession use and enjoyment of the petitioners over the land in question."

¶11

Brief facts of the case, as appears from record, are as under :-

¶12

(i) An order was passed on 30.01.1999 by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow (in short "DDC").

¶13

(ii) Vide order dated 30.01.1999, DDC decided two revisions i.e. Revision No. 792 (Riyaz Ahmad Vs. Mujammil and ors) & Revision No. 793 (Jameel Hussain Vs. Shafiq and ors.). The order dated 30.01.1999 was passed on merits.

¶14

(iii) With the prayer to recall the final order dated 30.01.1999, an

¶15

application dated 15.02.1999 was filed by respondent no.3/Mohammad Shafiq through mother Raziya Khatoon. (iv) The aforesaid application of respondent no.3 was rejected by DDC, vide order dated 07.08.2014. The order dated 07.08.2014 reads as under :-

¶16

" मम०शफफकपपतखलललवददरदपसतपतवदजददयरदपदररनदपतददनदनक 15.2.1999 ककदनसतदरणहकतपपतदवललपकशहहई।उभयपकउपससरतआयक।उनहकलललखतबहस ददलखलकरनकहकतपददनदनक 24.7.2014 कमदनदरदशतदकयदगयदरदइसककपपवरइनहक ददनदनक 5.7.2014 व 17.7.2014 कमभललललखतबहसपसतपतकरनकहकतपदनदरदशत दकयदगयद।दकनतपबदर - बदरअवसरदकनकककबदवजपदपककवददरदलललखतबहसददलखल नहहकफगयलहह।अततवदजददयरपदररनदपतकददनसतदरणपतदवललकदअवलमकन एनवपरलकणककउपरदनतगपण - दमषककआधदरपरदकयदजदतदहह।

¶17

पसतपतवदजददयरपदररनदपतमम०शफफकपपतखलललवददरदददनदनक 15.2.1999 कम दनगरदनलनयदयदलयवददरदपदररतआदकशददनदनक 30.1.99 ककदवरदपसतपतदकयद गयदहह।लजसममउनकदकरनहहदकनयदयदलयममदनगरदनलकतदरनकसहलतथय दछपदकरदबनदपदररकमकमईदवलधवततसममनवसपनवदईककबगहरउसककचककम बदलददयदहह।लजससकउसकहकतलफफहह।यहदकउकदनगरदनलजमअनयदनगरदनल ककसदरतयहहईहहवहदबनदपदररकमसपनकहहयकतयकफगयलहह।इसपकदरआदकश एकपकलयहह।अनतममकहददकपदररतआदकशददनदनक 30.1.99 दनरसतदकयदजदयक।

¶18

मपलदनगरदनलपतदवललकक अवलमकनसक दवददतहह दकदनगरदनलसनखयद -792 ररयदज अहमदबनदममजसममलआददवदनगरदनलसनखयद -793 जमललहहसकनबनदमशफफक आददकददनसतदरणततकदललनसहदयकसनचदलकचकबनदललखनऊवददरदददनदनक 30.1.1999 कमपकककमसपनकरदनगरददनयककददनसतदरणगपण - दमषकक आधदरपर दकयदगयदह।दनगरदनलपतदवललपरमम०शफफककमजदरलनमदटसमयतदमललदशह पदद सनलगह।आदह कशददनदनक 30.1.1999 कक अवलमकनसक दवददतहह दकउकआदकशगणप - दमषकक आधदरपरपदररतहह एकपकलयआदकशनहहह।ऐसलससरदतमह म मम०शफफक वददरदपसतपतवदजददयरपदररनदपतसवलकदरहमनक यमगयनहहह।वदजददयरपदरह रनद पतबलहलनहमनक कक कदरणदनरसतदकयक जदनक यमगयह।इसकह क अदतररकआदकश ददनदनक 30.1.99 गणप - दमषकक आधदरपरपदररतहमनक कक कदरणउसक दनरसतकरनक कद कमईऔदचतयएवन आधदरनहहह।ह

¶19

अततआदकशहहआदकउपरमकदववकचनकक आधदरपरमम०शफफकवददरदपसतपतपनप दवचदर / वदजददयरपदररनदपतददनदनक 15.2.99 बलहलनहमनक कक कदरणदनरसत दकयदजदतदह।वददआवशयककदयह रवदहलपतदवललअदभलकखदगदरमम सनदचतकफ " जदयक।

¶20

(v) After the aforesaid order dated 07.08.2014, another application was moved for recall of order dated 30.01.1999. This application allowed vide order dated 21.07.2015. Typed copy of the order, annexed at page 39 of the paper-book, reads as under :-

¶21

" 21-7-15

¶22

पतदवललपकशहहईपपकदरकरदईगईपतदवललकदअवलमकनदकयदलजससकदवददतहहआ दकइसबदबतददरद 30-1-99 कमआदकशपदररतदकयदगयदउससमयशफफकपपत खलललपदररनदबदललगरदलजसककसनबनधममटल . सलककदतलनकफददलखलकफगईहह लजसकदअवलमकनदकयदगयदचपदकआदकशपदररतहमनकककसमयपदररनदबदललक हमनककककदरणपदररतदकयदगयदआदकश 30-1-99 शपनयहमगद। ( अललअजलजबनदम भगवदनदस AIR 1947 इलदहदबदद 357) इसपकदरपदररतआदकशददनदनक 30-199 ररककलपरसरददपतदकयदजदतदहहपमददणतपककमनमदटसभकजलजदएपतदवलल

¶23

ददनदनक 11-8-15 कमपकशहम। "

¶24

(vi) On coming to know about the order dated 21.07.2015, an application dated 28.09.2024 along with application seeking condonation of delay, which was five years and one month i.e. 1825 days, was filed.

¶25

(vii) It would be relevant to clarify here that in terms of order dated 21.07.2015, the revision of the petitioners which was decided on merits vide final order dated 30.01.1999 affirmed vide order was 07.08.2014 was restored and the same was dismissed on 27.08.2019 for want of prosecution.

¶26

(viii) On coming to know about the order dated 27.08.2019, an application dated 27.09.2024 for recall of order dated 27.08.2019 was preferred by the petitioners.

¶27

(ix) The application dated 27.09.2024, indicated above, has been rejected by DDC by the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 observing therein that delay of five years and one month i.e. 1865 days has not been properly explained.

¶28

In the aforesaid background of the case, the present petition has been filed.

¶29

Considered the submissions advanced by the parties and perused the records.

¶30

Upon due consideration of the facts of the case, indicated above, this Court finds that interference is required. It is for the following reasons :-

¶31

(i) The application for recall of the order dated 30.01.1999 preferred by the side-opposite/respondent no.3 was itself not maintainable as the order was passed on merits and this aspect as already been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shivraji and others

¶32

Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, (1997) 88 RD 562 (FB) .

¶33

(ii) The application dated 15.02.1999 preferred by the respondent no. 3 for recall of final order dated 30.01.1999 was rejected on merits vide

¶34

order dated 07.08.2014 and thereafter for recall of the same order i.e. order dated 30.01.1999 an application on which order dated 21.07.2015 was passed was filed, which was not maintainable.

¶35

(iii) If this Court declines to cause interference in the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 then in that eventuality an illegal order i.e. order dated 21.07.2015 would revive.

¶36

(iv) The DDC while passing the order dated 08.01.2025 has not taken note of aforesaid aspect of the case.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 08.01.2025 is hereby set aside/quashed. The DDC is directed to pass afresh order after taking note of aforesaid. No order as to costs.

¶38

Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Mohit Singh/-

¶39

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

Aqueel Ahmad and Others v. Deputy Director Consolidation, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aqueel Ahmad and Others v. Deputy Director Consolidation, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajeet Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Deptt. Lko. and Another

Phoolchandra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vinay Chandra Tiwari @ Vinay Chandra Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Javed Ahmad @ Javed and 3 others Vs State of U.P. thru its principal sec. deptt. of home and another and

Priya Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Mohd. Nouman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.