Dharamveer and 3 Others Vs State of Up and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dharamveer and 3 Others Vs State of Up and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether, after the petitioners' earlier revision against the order dated 08.01.1971 had been dismissed on 24.02.2023, a fresh revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation once again challenging the same order was with right. +1 more

Court's answer

Once the petitioner had challenged the order dated 08.01.1971 through a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which came to be dismissed on 24.02.2023, a challenge to that order once again through a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation is absolutely without right; the Deputy Director of Consolidation was eminently right in dismissing the revision.

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 53 years in filing the revision has not at all been explained.

Key takeaways

Observation in passing: the very unusual facts appeared to the Court to be a determined attempt by the petitioner to abuse the process of law, on which basis the Court inclined to decide the writ petition on the record in the absence of the petitioners.obiter¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.; order date 24.1.2025) dismissed Writ-B No. 4402 of 2024 (Dharamveer and 3 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others), decided ex parte in the absence of the petitioners. The petitioners' father's objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (Case No. 3377) had been dismissed by the Consolidation Officer, Rampur on 08.01.1971. An earlier revision (No. 202354135900000006, Dharamveer vs. Gaon Sabha, filed 17.12.2022) against that order was dismissed on 24.02.2023 as grossly time barred, and Writ-B No. 1767 of 2023 against that dismissal was rejected by this Court on 10.07.2023, the revision being five decades beyond time with no explanation for delay. The petitioners nevertheless filed a fresh revision (No. 0138 of 2024, filed 15.06.2024) with a delay-condonation application seeking to explain a 53-year delay; the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed it by the impugned order dated 18.07.2024. Holding that a repeat revision against the same order is absolutely without right and that the 53-year delay remained wholly unexplained, the Court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the writ, noting the facts appeared to be a determined attempt to abuse the process of law.

Court No. - 49

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4402 of 2024

Petitioner :- Dharamveer And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Pandey,C.S.C.

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

Case called on. No one appears for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ray, learned Standing Counsel is present on behalf of the State.

In view of very unusual facts which appears to be a determined attempt by the petitioner to abuse the process of law, we are inclined to decide this writ petition on the basis of record in the absence of the petitioners.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that objections under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, giving rise to Case No. 3377, were decided by the Consolidation Officer, Rampur vide order dated 08.01.1971. The revision, wherein the impugned order has been made was filed on 15.06.2024 along with a delay condonation application seeking to explain a delay of 53 years. Objections were filed by the petitioners' father and dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 08.01.1971. The order dated 08.01.1971 was not very long ago challenged by the same petitioners, to wit, Dharamveer and others. A revision was preferred before the Deputy Director of Consolidation being Revision No. 202354135900000006, Dharamveer vs. Gaon Sabha on 17.12.2022. The said revision was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 24.02.2023, as grossly time barred.

This order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was challenged by the petitioners before this Court by means of Writ-B No. 1767 of 2023. This Court dismissed Writ-B No. 1767 of 2023 vide order dated 10.07.2023 holding that the revision, then preferred by the petitioner, was five decades beyond time and there was no explanation for the delay. Now, the petitioner has again challenged the order dated 08.01.1971 passed in Case No. 3377 by the Consolidation Officer, Rampur by means of Revision No. 0138 of 2024, which the Deputy Director of Consolidation, after referring to the earlier failed revision and challenge before this Court, has dismissed by means of the impugned order dated 18.07.2024. The revisional court has held that the present revision is 53 years beyond time without any cogent explanation for the delay. The explanation given of whatever worth has been discarded.

Apart from other things, once the petitioner had challenged the order dated 08.01.1971 through a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.02.2023 a challenge to that order dated 08.01.1971 once again through a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation is absolutely without right. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is eminently right in dismissing the revision. The delay of 53 years also has not at all been explained.

This petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Brijesh Maurya

Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad