Allahabad High Court
Babu Ram vs State Of U.P.And Ors. on 5 July, 2021
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 2287 of 1979
Petitioner :- Babu Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- V.P. Nag,Smt. Priti Saxena,U.S. Sahai
Counsel for Respondent :- Mubin Ahmad,Rohit Jaiswal,Shankar Dayal Jaiswal
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
[Civil Misc. Application No.10332 of 2019 (Review Petition) and Civil Misc. Application No.10331 of 2019 (Application for condonation of delay)]
The Court has convened through video conferencing.
This review petition has been placed before this Court in pursuance of the order dated 22.03.2021, whereby a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had required the matter to be placed before the Court after seeking nomination from Hon'ble the Chief Justice / Hon'ble Senior Judge.
The record indicates that vide order dated 26.05.2021, passed by Hon'ble the Senior Judge, the matter was directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench. In this view of the matter, the matter has been listed today before this Court.
Heard Shri Rohit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the review-petitioner and Shri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the private-respondents (the original writ petitioner) and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
The cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay bearing is allowed and the delay in filing the review petition is condoned.
The instant review petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 05.07.2018 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
The sole submission of the learned counsel for the review-petitioner is that the entire impugned order dated 05.07.2018 is built on a wrong premise. It is submitted that the judgment under review is based on the amendment which was introduced in the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act which became effective from 10.11.1980. However, the decision before the writ court was passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in the year 1979, thus, the said amendment of 1980 was clearly not applicable to the case in question and, therefore, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case to be decided afresh by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is an error apparent on the face of the record.
It has further been urged that the matter is of the year 1979 and it would be appropriate if the matter is heard by the Court at this stage itself after allowing the review.
Shri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the private-respondent (the original writ petitioner) submits that the manner in which the learned counsel for the review-petitioner has placed his submission is not quite correct. It is submitted that the basic ground upon which the writ petition was preferred in the year 1979 was that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not have power to enter into the question of fact. In case if the Deputy Director of Consolidation arrived at a conclusion that the findings were perverse or against the law then it ought to have set aside the findings and remanded the matter. However, only in the year 1980, the amendment was introduced and the Deputy Director of Consolidation was confined with the power to enter into the question of fact and since the judgment passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was prior to the date of amendment, hence, the exercise of powers by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was erroneous and upon this ground the writ petition has been allowed and the matter remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding afresh. There is no error apparent on the face of record and the review petition deserves to be rejected.
The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the record.
Apparently, the writ petition was of the year 1979 came to be decided on 05.07.2018. The record indicates that at the time when the writ petition was heard on merits the respondents (the review petitioner) were not present.
The submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner (private-respondents herein) have been noticed by the Co-ordinate Bench hearing the writ petition notices that the amendment in the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act was introduced on 10.11.1980 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order which was challenged in writ petition was of the year 1979, when such powers of entering into the question of fact did not vest with the Deputy Director of Consolidation, consequently the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was bad.
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after noticing the decisions in the case of Mewa Ram & Anr. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Faizabad & Ors., 1998 (4) AWC 826 (Alld) as well as Gaya Din (D) through LRs. & Ors. v. Hanuman Prasad (D) through LRs. & Ors., (2001) 1 SCC 501 came to the conclusion that it is not open for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to enter into the question of facts unless there is perversity and if so even after setting aside the findings, the matter ought to have been remanded.
It is in light of the matter, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 05.07.2018 set aside the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.07.1979 and the matter has been remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide afresh after hearing the parties concerned.
This Court does not find that there is any error apparent on the face of record and even assuming if the arguments of the learned counsel for the review-petitioner is taken note of, it would still indicate that the amendment was introduced in the year 1980 whereas the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is 1979. In absence of specific powers to enter into the question of facts which has been noticed by a Co-ordinate Bench and having relied upon the decisions as already noted above, this Court does not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the review-petitioner.
Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
It has also been informed that the matter is still pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation despite the order having been passed by this Court in the year 2018, accordingly, it is directed that the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall decide the pending matter before it expeditiously after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned preferably within a period of four months from the date an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation concerned.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 5.7.2021
Rakesh/-
