Allahabad High Court
Amarjeet vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 18 August, 2017
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 36749 of 2017
Petitioner :- Amarjeet
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 15 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Mohan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned judgments and orders dated 12.4.2017 and 24.7.2013 passed by respondent no. 1 filed as Annexures 6 and 4 respectively to the writ petition.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned dated 24.7.2013 whereby the matter has been remanded back to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was ex-parte against the petitioner as he was not impleaded as one of the respondents in the revision as well as it is clear from the memo of revision. In such view of the matter, the order dated 24.7.2013 being ex-parte to the petitioner is liable to be set aside. It was next submitted that for this reason the restoration application filed by the petitioner has also been incorrectly rejected by the impugned order dated 12.4.2017. Therefore, the submission is that the orders are liable to be set aside and the petitioner is liable to be heard on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also sought to challenge the order dated 24.7.2013 on merits.
Per-contra, learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned orders and has submitted that the order dated 24.7.2013 is an order of remand and the case has been remanded back to be decided on merits noticing the fact that there had been a lot of interpolation also on the record and therefore, it has to be decided afresh after obtaining expert report. Further all the parties including brothers of the present petitioner who are parties to the revision were heard and no substantial injustice has been caused to the petitioner.
I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record.
A perusal of the record clearly indicates that vide order dated 23.2.1996 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner alongwith his three brothers namely Janardan, Amarjeet and Brijendra Vijendra all sons of Ram Chander was allowed and their names were directed to be recorded by setting aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 12.11.1973. The revision filed by the State was allowed noticing the fact that there had been a lot of interpolation and the area has wrongly been mentioned and therefore, expert report is necessary and on this ground the matter was remanded back to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Even assuming the contention of the petitioner to be true that he was not party to the revision, it is not in dispute that three real brothers who claim to have inherited the property were party to the revision and their names have been given in the memo of revision filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
In such view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner cannot be different from that of his three other brothers who were heard and after hearing them the matter was remanded back to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation for decision afresh after obtaining expert report vide order dated 24.7.2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
As such, even if the petitioner was not heard before passing the order dated 24.7.2013, who had filed restoration application after a delay of five and half months, no substantial injustice has been caused to the petitioner.
In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise my powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.8.2017
p.s.
