HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?AFR Court No. - 34 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4190 of 2011 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Respondent :- Ajay Verma, Consolidation Officer And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Kumar Sharma Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
The applicant alleges to have filed Writ Petition No. 52320 of 2010 (Santosh Kumar Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation/Addl. Collector Etawah & others), wherein by the order dated 18.8.2010, the Court issued a direction to the Consolidation Officer Barpura, District Etawah to pass appropriate order on the pending application under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') filed by the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. Learned counsel states that certified copy of the order was served on the Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation on 6/9.9.2010. According to him, the Consolidation Officer has passed an order dated 10.12.2010 (Annexure-9 to the affidavit filed in support of this contempt petition), on the application filed under Rule 109-A of the Rules.
Contempt is alleged against the Consolidation Officer as also against the Settlement Officer Consolidation.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that under Rule 109-A (1) of the Rules orders passed in the cases covered under Sub-Section (2) of Section 52 shall be given effect by the Consolidation Authorities. He refers to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 109-A and states that if for the purpose of giving affect to an order passed under Sub-Rule (1) it become necessary to reallocate affected chaks then necessary order may be passed by the Consolidation Officer. Learned counsel states that the order dated 10.12.2010 has been passed by the Consolidation Officer under Rule 109-A (1) then he has to give effect to the same as provided under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 109-A and by not doing so he has disobeyed the direction issued by the Writ Court.
According to learned counsel for the applicant, Sub-Rules (3) and (4) of Rule 109-A provides for filing appeal by the aggrieved person and for delivery of possession as a result of orders passed under Sub- Rule (2) or in an appeal under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 109-A. He states that one Mahant Baba Chotte Das has preferred an appeal against the order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Consolidation Officer under Rule 109-A (1) and the Settlement Officer Consolidation has passed an order of status quo on 23.3.2011. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the Settlement Officer Consolidation has therefore, also disobeyed the direction issued by the Writ Court, wherein the requirement was for complying of all the provisions of Rule 109-A of the Rules.
Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record, it appears that the petitioner had filed writ petition by stating that his application under Rule 109-A of the Rules has not been given effect. The Court by the order, contempt whereof is alleged directed the Consolidation Officer to pass appropriate order on the pending application under Rule 109-A of the petitioner within a period of four months. The Consolidation Officer appears to have passed the order on 10.12.2010. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant that by not giving effect to his own order as required under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 109-A, the Consolidation Officer has disobeyed the direction issued by the Writ Court. As has already been noticed above when an order is passed under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 109-A and it is necessary to give effect to such order passed under Sub- Rule (1), an order is to be passed under Sub Rule (2) after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. Admittedly, no order under Sub Rule (2) has been passed till date.
An appeal has admittedly been filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation against the order passed under Rule 109-A (1) wherein an order of status-quo is operating. The appeal is provided under Sub Rule(3) of Rule 109-A and if appeal is filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and he has passed an order of status-quo, it cannot be held that he has disobeyed the order dated 28.3.2010 passed by the Writ Court. It is his statutory duty to entertain and decide the appeal hence by passing an interim order on the appeal, it cannot be held to be a violation of the interim order of the High Court, where the only direction was to the Consolidation Officer to pass appropriate order on the application under Rule 109-A.
The statutory provision cannot be ignored nor any party can be deprived of a statutory right. Therefore, to interpret the interim order of the Writ Court to mean that the provisions of Sub-rule (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 109-A have to be ignored is totally misconceived and incorrect. The Writ Court directed that the application filed under Rule 109-A be decided by the Consolidation Officer and it has been decided by the order dated 10.12.2010.
For the aforesaid reasons, neither the opposite party no.1 has disobeyed the direction of the Writ Court since he has passed the order dated 10.12.2010 under Rule 109-A (1) of the Rules nor the opposite party no.2 has disobeyed the direction issued by the Writ Court by entertaining the statutory appeal by passing an order of status-quo.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this contempt petition appears to be misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.8.2011 Lbm/-