Allahabad High Court
Ambika Prasad & Others vs Deputy Director Of ... on 21 November, 2013
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
A.F.R.
Court No. - 21
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 700 of 2013
Petitioner :- Ambika Prasad & Others
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Distt.Pratapgarh & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dev Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Petitioners are utterly abusing the process of the Court. Contesting respondents no. 5 and 6 Lalmani and Shiv Prasad have filed some objections under section 9-A (2) of U.P. C.H. Act before the Consolidation Officer II Tehsil Patti District Pratapgarh. Petitioners filed reply to the said objections and contended inter-alia that the claim was barred by resjudicata as earlier a suit under Section 229 B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land reforms Act in between the same parties with respect to the same land, had been decided on the basis of compromise. Thereafter petitioners filed an application that the question of resjudicata shall be decided first. Consolidation Officer very rightly ordered that all questions would be decided simultaneously.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that objections under section 9A (2) were filed in the year 1973 and counter objections/written statement was filed by the petitioners on 27.12.1973. This is horrible abuse of process of court that for 40 years objections have not been decided due to persistent efforts of the petitioners which betray the weakness of their case on merit. The order of Consolidation Officer that all points would be decided simultaneously was approved by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh through order passed on 15.12.2012 in Revision No. 1790 Ambika Prasad and others Vs. Ramraj and others (Annexure-IV).
The contesting respondents out of frustration filed a writ petition in this court being Misc. single No. 4443 of 2013 Lal Mani and another Vs. Consolidation Officer, IInd Pratapgarh and others, which was disposed of on 12.07.2013 with a direction to Consolidation Officer (II) Pratapgarh to decide the aforesaid case within a period of six months. In order to frustrate the said order petitioners filed a transfer application being T.A. Case No. 42 which was rejected on 30.09.2013 by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Pratapgarh. Petitioners have filed revision against the same being Revision No. 1900 of 2012-13, which is pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh. The prayer made through this writ petition is that Deputy Director of Consolidation, may be directed to transfer the case to any other consolidation Officer.
The above facts clearly demonstrate that the petitioners are using every trick available in the book to delay the proceedings for 40 years. There is absolutely nothing wrong in the order of settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 30.09.2013 refusing the transfer of the case.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Revision No. 1900 of 2012-13 are quashed and writ of prohibition is issued with a direction to the Deputy Director of Consolidation Pratapgarh not to proceed further with the said revision. Consolidation Officer concerned is directed to decide the case (pertaining to the agricultural land comprised in Khata no. 50 situate in village Sekhan District Pratapgarh) positively within three months' and no transfer application filed by the petitioner shall be entertained by S.O.C., D.D.C. etc. Consolidation Officer is strictly directed not to grant a single adjournment to the petitioners under any circumstances as the petitioners have crossed every limit. It is experience of the Court that when some one's case on merit is extremely weak he takes shelter behind dilatory tactics. Consolidation Officer shall decide all point simultaneously.
Before amendment of C.P.C. In 1976/77 and insertion of Order 23 Rule 3-A a decree based on compromise could be challenged by separate suit on the ground that compromise was not lawful or genuine.
Accordingly if contesting respondents can show that compromise before S.D.O. And dismissal of recall application by consent (Annexure no. 1 and 2 to the writ petition) was not genuine and did not bear the signatures of all the parties, it can be set aside or ignored by the Consolidation Courts.
Court will not appreciate a single day's delay in the time schedule fixed through the earlier part of this judgment for deciding the objections.
With the aforesaid observations writ petition is disposed of.
Office is directed to supply free copy of this order to Shri Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who may send the same to the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer, concerned.
Order Date :- 21.11.2013
Deepak
