Allahabad High Court
Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors. vs A.D.M.(F & R)/Dy.Director ... on 20 January, 2021
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 6
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 23503 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors.
Respondent :- A.D.M.(F & R)/Dy.Director Consolidation, Sultanpur & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shrikant Mishra,Hemant Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 24.9.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur in Revision no.1423/2016 (Samar Bahadur Singh and others vs. Ajay Kumar Singh and others) and a further prayer has been made for quashing of the compromise dated 24.11.1987 in Case no.167/168 (Shambhunath Singh vs. Mahendra Bahadur Singh and others) on which reliance was placed by the contesting respondents no.2 to 6 before the court of Consolidation Officer.
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are sons of second wife of one Mahendra Bahadur Singh, who was the son of Mahavir Singh. Mahavir Singh had two sons Shambhunath Singh and Mahendra Bahadur Singh. With regard to the property of Mahavir Singh, a dispute arose between Shambhunath Singh and Mahendra Bahadur Singh where Shambhunath Singh claimed greater share on the ground that he was the elder son and custom of primogeniture was applicable on such property. The dispute regarding whether Shambhunath Singh was entitled to greater share on the property of Mahavir Singh being the elder son was decided by this Court 13.10.1950 holding that Shambhunath Singh could not establish that there was any custom regarding primogeniture being followed in the family.
Before the Consolidation Officer, Shambhunath Singh again raised objections based on his claim of primogeniture. The objections were raised on 13.5.1981 and direction was issued that the properties of Mahavir Singh be divided equally between his two sons for Gata no.96. With regard to other gata i.e. Gata no.55, since it was recorded solely in the name of Mahendra Bahadur Singh, the father of the petitioners and there was no direction that it be shared between the parties, Shambhunath Singh's objections having been rejected, he filed a recall application, which was also rejected.
An application for reopening of case before the Consolidation Officer was filed by the sons of Shambhunath Singh along with sons of Mahendra Bahadur Singh from his first wife. The petitioners were not impleaded in the said case and a collusive compromise was entered into between the parties. The petitioners being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation after considering the case that the petitioners' claim was not considered at all, remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for fresh consideration. Against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, respondent nos.2 to 6 approached the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision no.1423/2016 wherein the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation remanding the matter to the Settlement Officer Consolidation to consider afresh.
3. Learned Standing Counsel Sri Upendra Singh has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the order passed by the revisional court dated 24.9.2019 is only an order of remand on the ground that challenge against such orders is ordinarily not entertained in writ petitions. He has referred to the judgments rendered by this Court in Kallan vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1971 RD 491 and Sursati vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation and others, 2006 (100) RD 692.
4. This Court has considered the preliminary objection raised by Sri Upendra Singh and has also heard learned counsel for the petitioners in detail. It appears that the rights of the petitioners have been affected by orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and without hearing them. Such orders had rightly been set aside by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer to decide afresh. Now the Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed in the revision that all facts were before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and therefore, since the parties were appearing before him, he should have considered the evidence and should have decided the matter and not remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer, further prolonging the agony of the parties.
5. This Court does not find any good ground to show interference in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as he has asked the Settlement Officer Consolidation to consider and decide the case after taking into account all relevant material on record and after hearing all parties to the dispute.
6. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sultanpur to decide the appeal in accordance with the observations made in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 24.9.2019 regarding admissibility of the compromise that was earlier relied upon by the Consolidation Officer in deciding the case in favour of respondent nos.2 to 6. It is expected that since the dispute has been pending before the Consolidation authorities since 1980 it shall be decided as expeditiously as possible by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, say within a period of six months from the date, a copy of this order is produced before him.
7. It is also expected that none of the parties to the dispute shall seek unnecessary adjournments in the matter. It is also expected that no third party interest be created on the property in dispute during the pendency of the appeal.
Order Date :- 20.1.2021
Sachin
