Allahabad High Court
Yaseen vs Consolidation Officer And ... on 16 July, 2021
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1004 of 2021
Petitioner :- Yaseen
Respondent :- Consolidation Officer And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ayub Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer - I, Moradabad in Case No. 1427 (State vs. Yaseen) registered under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 whereby the Consolidation Officer has held that the allotment to the petitioner was of a plot which was included under Section 132 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 and, therefore, the records be placed before the concerned revenue authorities for cancellation of allotment and by the same order has declared the disputed plot to be outside consolidation operations.
The order has been challenged on the ground that the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to adjudge the legality of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner a jurisdiction which vested in the revenue courts.
In support of his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in Similesh Kumar vs. Gaon Sabha AIR 1977 360.
The office report shows that there is a delay of 1631 days in filing the writ petition. The laches in filing the writ petition has been explained from paragraph nos. 25 to 35 of the writ petition. The impugned order was passed on 19th October, 2016 and the certified copy of the order annexed with the writ petition reveals that the copy of the order was applied by the petitioner on 21st June, 2021 and was issued to him on 22nd June, 2021. In view of the aforesaid, the Court does not find satisfactory the explanation of laches in filing the writ petition as given by the petitioner in the aforesaid paragraphs of the writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on ground of laches. However, the Court has also considered the merits of the case.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to consider the validity of the allotment made to the petitioner in light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in Similesh Kumar (supra) is also not acceptable as the opinion of the Full Bench was declared as incorrect by the Supreme Court in its judgment reported in U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors. 2000 (2) SCC 572. In its aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has held that void documents can be ignored by the consolidation courts. Thus, in case, an allotment is void, the consolidation courts could ignore it which the Consolidation Officer has done vide his order dated 19th October, 2016.
Apart from the aforesaid, no final orders have yet been passed by any authority cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, no cause of action rests in the petitioner to file the present writ petition.
In light of the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.7.2021
Satyam
