Allahabad High Court
Smt. Urmila vs Collector/D.D.C. & 3 Others on 21 November, 2017
Bench: Manoj Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?"AFR"
Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 55159 of 2017
Petitioner :- Smt. Urmila
Respondent :- Collector/D.D.C. & 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ruduvant Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and perused the record.
The second respondent (Amit Kumar) had filed an objection under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to record his name in place of recorded deceased tenure-holder Mangeram. Another objection was filed by Arjun and Dinesh (respondents 3 and 4). The objections preferred by the respondents 2, 3 and 4 were rejected by Consolidation Officer, Saharanpur, vide order dated 17th May, 2016, and a direction was issued to record name of petitioner (Smt. Urmila) as sister of deceased Mangeram. Against the order dated 17th May, 2016, passed by Consolidation Officer, second respondent filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Saharanpur in which an interim order was passed on 19th May, 2016 thereby staying the operation of order dated 17th May, 2016 and directing the parties not to transfer the disputed property until further orders.
During the pendency of the appellate proceeding, the petitioner moved an application before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Saharanpur stating therein that the other side, namely, Amit Kumar, with the help of police was interfering in harvesting of crops sown by her therefore appropriate order be passed permitting her (Smt. Urmila) to harvest the crop. On the aforesaid application, it appears, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation directed the Assistant Consolidation Officer to submit report as to which party had sown the crop and to ensure that parties maintain status-quo. Pursuant thereto, it appears, some report was submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. On the basis of the report, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation issued a letter dated 19th April, 2017 to the Consolidation Officer with copy to Assistant Consolidation Officer and the police station concerned to enable harvesting of crop by the petitioner after observing that from the report it appears that the petitioner had sown the crop.
The order/ letter dated 19th April, 2017, passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was challenged by the second respondent before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur, inter alia, on the ground that when an interim order was passed in the appellate proceeding on 19th May, 2016 and the appeal was pending, there was no justification for the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to call for a report and to deal with the aspect of possession, separately, on the administrative side while the matter was being examined on the judicial side.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur by impugned order dated 15th May, 2017 held that the letter dated 19th April, 2017 was not appropriate and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation erred by dealing with the matter as if he was exercising administrative power, when the matter was pending on judicial side. Accordingly, by the order impugned dated 15.05.2017 the matter was remanded back to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation for taking fresh decision after hearing both sides.
In the meantime, it appears, taking advantage of the order dated 19th April, 2017, the petitioner harvested the crop, as a result, the second respondent moved an application before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to direct the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- (one lac fifty thousand), by way of security, towards the value of crops harvested by the petitioner. It appears that when the aforesaid application was filed, the petitioner being apprehensive that direction may be issued to deposit the cost has chosen to file this petition against the order dated 15th May, 2017, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 15th May, 2017, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur, is without jurisdiction because the order dated 19th April, 2017 against which revision was preferred, was in the nature of an interlocutory order passed during the pendency of the appellate proceeding, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur ought not to have interfered with such an order.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.
Even assuming that the order dated 19th April, 2017 was an interlocutory order, the question whether the petitioner was entitled to harvest the crop or not is a matter which had to be examined on judicial side in the pending appeal. Fundamental aspect of a judicial proceeding is that the parties to the proceedings have to be heard before any order is passed affecting their interest. Whether A is in possession and has sown the crop or B is in possession and has sown the crop can only be decided on the basis of evidence. Report can be considered as piece of evidence when, after opportunity to the parties to file their objection, a report is confirmed. The order dated 19th April, 2017 seems to be not an order on the judicial side but more a letter on the administrative side, which was not appropriate when the matter was sub-judice on the judicial side. Accordingly even though technically the revision against such an order may not be maintainable but setting aside the impugned order would revive an illegal order which cannot be allowed in equity jurisdiction of this court. Hence, this court finds no good reason to interfere with the order dated 15th May, 2017.
Further, when any party is allowed by the court to harvest the standing crop pending litigation then, ordinarily, to ensure that the other party is not deprived of the fruits of litigation, if ultimately the matter is decided in its favour, the court must direct the party benefiting by the interim order to deposit such security as may be appropriate in the facts of the case.
For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no good reason to entertain this petition and interfere with the order dated 15th May, 2017 inasmuch as it does substantial justice between the parties. However, it is left open to the parties to raise their respective claim before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in respect of their right to harvest the crop over the land in dispute as also as to how much security need be deposited in lieu of harvest made.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.11.2017.
Rks.
