Allahabad High Court
Prakash Chandra vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 12 April, 2019
Bench: Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 6815 of 2016
Petitioner :- Prakash Chandra
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Kanpur Nagar And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Pathak,Arvind Srivastava,Chandra Bhan Singh,Rakesh Pathak,Satya Man Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brij Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Nobody is present on behalf of the respondents, even in the revised call of daily cause list, although the name of Sri Brij Kumar Yadav, Advocate is shown in the daily cause list as counsel for the respondents.
No counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents.
Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 13.07.2015 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Head Office, Lucknow Camp at Kanpur Nagar whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order dated 29.05.2015 passed by Settlement Office Consolidation, Kanpur Nagar as well as order of the Consolidation Officer dated 23.03.2015, in proceeding under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954.
It reflects from the record that some order was passed in favour of the petitioner by Consolidation Officer on 26.10.1967 in Case No. 358 whereby the name of the petitioner was directed to be recorded in the revenue record in place of recorded entry as banzar. Subsequently, on 25.10.2006, petitioner filed an application for implementation of the order dated 26.10.1967 passed in Case No. 358 before the Consolidation Officer under Rule 109-A of the Rules 1954. The said application was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23.03.2015 solely on the ground that the village has been de-notified under Section 52 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and the application was filed after 39 years which is highly time barred.
The order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the Consolidation Officer was challenged before the Settlement Officer Consolidation by way of an appeal under sub rule 3 of Rule 109-A of the Rules 1954, which too was dismissed by order dated 29.05.2015.
The orders passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation were affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision which was dismissed on 13.07.2015.
All the aforesaid three orders are impugned in the writ petition.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no limitation prescribed under the law for implementation of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and that order has to be implemented by the Consolidation Authority on their own as a matter of course. But as the Consolidation Authority had failed to implement such order, the petitioner approached for implementation of the order and his application cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation as no limitation prescribed under law. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Adbul Sami and others Vs. D.D.C. and others reported in 2015 (1) ADJ 214.
I have considered the submission so raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is apparent from the record that the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 109-A of the Rules 1954 was rejected on the ground of limitation. The ratio laid down in the decision of Abdul Sami (supra) relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The relevant extract of the said judgment is quoted here under:-
"From the entire scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder it thus becomes clear that the duty for revising the revue records is cast on the Consolidation Authorities and it is for the Consolidation Authorities to implement the orders which are passed under the Act. The Scheme of the Act is not like the scheme which has been provided under the Code of Civil procedure in the sense that after obtaining a judgment and decree in his favour a party has to apply for execution within a certain period of limitation prescribed to get the fruits of the decree. Here under the Act the duty is enjoined on the Consolidation Authorities themselves to implement the orders which have been passed under the Act and no duty is cast on the person in whose favour the decision has been given to make an application to the authorities under the Act for implementation of that order within any prescribed period of limitation. In our opinion, till the order passed by the Consolidation authorities on 13.5.1974 was not finally implemented by the Consolidation Authorities as contemplated under the Rules, the proceedings under the Act would be deemed to be pending. The order which has been passed in favour of the contesting respondents was to be incorporated by the Consolidation Authorities in the revenue records. The Consolidation Authorities having not done so, the proceedings in respect thereof can not be said to have been concluded before de-notification of the village. The proceedings for correcting the revenue records in pursuance of the order dated 13.5.1974 would necessarily be taken to be pending on the date of the notification issued under section 52 (1) of the Act. The Consolidation Authorities were thus bound to implement the directions contained in the final order dated 13.5.1974 under the Act even though a notification under section 52 (1) of the Act had taken place."
From the above judgment, it is apparent that there is no limitation prescribed under the law for implementation of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer under Rule 190-A of the Rules, 1954. Reliance was also placed on the decision by the Single Bench of this Court in the Case of Mukhtar Vs. D.D.C., Azamgarh, 1993 AWC 1549.
It is apparent from the aforesaid judgments that order passed by the Consolidation Officers has to be incorporated in the revenue record by the Consolidation Authorities by themselves as a matter of course and in case the Consolidation Authorities fail to implement the same in the revenue record during the consolidation operation the proceeding would be deemed to be pending on the issuance of notification under Section 52 (1), in view of Sub-Section 2 of Section 52.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and all the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities dated 13.07.2015, 29.05.2015 and 23.03.2015 are hereby quashed.
The Consolidation Officer- respondent No. 3 is directed to restore the case to its original number and decide the application of the petitioner filed for implementation of the order dated 26.10.1967 under Rule 190-A of the Rules 1954, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 12.4.2019
Sweety
