Allahabad High Court
Naveen Kumar vs Dy.Director Of Consolidation ... on 26 July, 2021
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 642 of 2018
Petitioner :- Naveen Kumar
Respondent :- Dy.Director Of Consolidation Unnao And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P V Chaudhary
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Application for dismissal of the writ petition being infructuous has been filed by learned counsel for opposite parties no.3 and 4 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 and Mr. P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.3 and 4.
Petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao in Revision No.749 of 2016-2017 under Section 48 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and order dated 11.08.2017 passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation in appeal.
Earlier, the petition had been heard at length and final orders with regard to same had also been passed on 23.07.2021, but prior to signing of the judgment, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that by means of the impugned orders, the dispute had been remanded to the Consolidation Officer for a decision a fresh. There was no interim order in the present writ petition due to which the Consolidation Officer concerned continued to hear the matter and has subsequently decided it. The petitioner had already filed an appeal there against which is said to be pending.
This aspect of the matter was not within knowledge of either counsel on the last date of hearing.
Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that since the orders challenged in the writ petition were primarily on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the writ petition can be heard finally and decided despite subsequent event. He has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa & Another vs. Mamata Mohanti reported in (2011)3 Supreme Court Cases 436 to substantiate the legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage and a subsequent development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception.
Upon consideration of the submissions, it is apparent that there was no interim order in the writ petition due to which the Consolidation Officer proceeded to hear and decide the dispute between the parties during pendency of the writ petition. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer has also been challenged by the petitioners before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation where the proceedings are still pending consideration.
In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to decide on the merits of the case or even with regard to jurisdiction of the authorities to hear the matter once the Consolidation Officer has already passed relevant orders upon remand effective by the order impugned in the present writ petition.
In view of aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all objections in the appeal pending before Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
Order Date :- 26.7.2021
Subodh/-
