Allahabad High Court
Mohar Singh And 7 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1840 of 2019
Petitioner :- Mohar Singh And 7 Others
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh,Ramendra Asthana
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
The Vakalatnama filed by Sri Ramendra Asthana, Advocate on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 is taken on record.
Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi, the counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ramendra Asthana, the counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4.
The facts of the case are that respondent nos. 2 to 4 filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') before the Consolidation Officer for valuation of Plot No. 1612/3 (hereinafter referred to as, 'disputed plot') and for including it in the consolidation operations. The said plot was initially chucked out from the consolidation operations on the basis of entries in C.H. Form 2-A showing the plot to be a grove land. It appears that the Consolidation Officer had summoned a report from the Chakbandi Karta who submitted his report showing that there were some constructions on the plot and a boring as well as some trees standing on the plot. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 5.12.2017 dismissed the objections filed by the respondents on ground of limitation as well as on the ground that according to the spot inspection report, the plot was liable to be chucked out and, therefore, no valuation of the plot was required. Against the order dated 5.12.2017 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the respondents filed an appeal on 5.2.2018 which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 22.2.2019 as barred by limitation. Aggrieved, the respondents challenged the orders dated 5.12.2017 and 22.2.2019 passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation through Revision No. 166 of 2019 filed under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Through his order dated 8.7.2019, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has set-aside the orders passed by the subordinate consolidation authorities and remanded back the matter to the Consolidation Officer to make a spot inspection and decide the objections filed by the respondents on merits. The order dated 8.7.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut has been challenged in the present writ petition.
It is evident from the order dated 5.12.2017 passed by the Consolidation Officer that the said order has been passed relying on a report submitted by some other officer before the Consolidation Officer. A perusal of the report dated 3.10.2017 shows that the situation of the disputed plot has not been recorded in the same and, therefore, the said report could not have been relied upon by the Consolidation Officer to dismiss the objections filed by the respondents.
It was argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had committed an error of law apparent on the face of record setting-aside the orders passed by the subordinate consolidation authorities without reversing the findings of the subordinate consolidation authorities on the issue of limitation. The argument of the counsel for the petitioners is unfounded. A reading of the order dated 8.7.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation shows that in his aforesaid order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has noted the fact that because of a notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, 1953 and for certain other reasons, the consolidation operations in the village were obstructed and, therefore, the delay in filing the objections was liable to be condoned. So far as the delay in filing the appeal is concerned, it is evident that there was only a month's delay in filing the appeal and, therefore, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court so far as the Deputy Director of Consolidation has set-aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissing the appeal only on the ground of limitation. It was further argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself had the power to make a spot inspection and decide whether the disputed plot should be chucked out from the consolidation operations or should be brought within the consolidation operations and a valuation of the said plot be done and, therefore, in his order dated 8.7.2019, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has erred in law in remanding back the matter to the Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision on merits. Sri Ramendra Asthana, Advocate representing respondent nos. 2 to 4 has conceded that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had the power to make a spot inspection and decide the dispute between the parties regarding the nature of the disputed plot and whether it should be chucked out. The parties agree that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may himself make a spot inspection in the presence of the parties and pass appropriate orders regarding the grievance of the respondents. In this context, an application was also filed by the petitioners before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
In view of the aforesaid statement of the counsel for the parties and the fact that the Deputy Director of Consolidation through his order dated 8.7.2019 had found it fit to condone the delay in filing the objections, the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut to himself make a spot inspection and prepare a report in presence of the parties after giving sufficient notice to them and pass appropriate orders regarding the grievance of respondent nos. 2 to 4 within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him by either of the parties.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Satyam
