Allahabad High Court
Noor Mohmmad And 3 Others vs District Deputy Director Of ... on 8 July, 2019
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1695 of 2019
Petitioner :- Noor Mohmmad And 3 Others
Respondent :- District Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 13 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioners.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 7.3.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Bareilly.
The facts of the case relevant for a decision of the writ petition are that against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in a case registered under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') whereby the Consolidation Officer had determined the share of the parties over the disputed plots, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The said appeal was decided by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on the basis of a compromise signed by the petitioners and only one of the respondents or his representatives. The compromise was not signed by the other opposite parties in the appeal. However, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation decided the appeal filed by the petitioners in terms of the compromise and set-aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. When the contesting respondents came to know about the aforesaid order, they filed an application praying for recall of the appellate order and the application was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on grounds of delay. Aggrieved, the respondents filed Revision No. 2018531213000048 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 7.3.2019 and the orders dated 2.1.2006 as well as 2.5.2018 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowing the appeal filed by the petitioners and dismissing the recall application filed by respondents have been set-aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the appeal on merits. The order dated 7.3.2019 has been challenged in the present writ petition.
The impugned order is a remand order and therefore no interference is required in the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners shall have the opportunity to present their case before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on merits.
Apart from the aforesaid, it is evident from the order dated 2.1.2006 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation that through his aforesaid order, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had set-aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer relying on a compromise which was signed only by the petitioners/appellants and one of the opposite parties and the said compromise was not signed by all the opposite parties whose interest was being adversely affected by order dated 2.1.2006. The order was patently illegal and was liable to be set-aside.
It also appears from the order dated 7.3.2019 that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had rejected the recall application accompanying the delay condonation application filed by the petitioners on the ground that the same was filed after the issuance of notification under Section 52 of the Act, 1953. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order dated 7.3.2019 has rightly held that the grounds stated by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation were not valid in law in as much as the recall application was filed by the respondents along with a delay condonation application and as the order dated 2.1.2006 itself was without jurisdiction and illegal, therefore, it was appropriate that the recall application should have been allowed and the parties should have been allowed to contest the case on merits.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no illegality in the order dated 7.3.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
However, considering the circumstances of the case, it is directed the the Settlement Officer of Consolidation shall decide the appeal within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
Order Date :- 8.7.2019
Satyam
