Allahabad High Court
Beni Ram And 2 Others vs Deputey Director Of ... on 29 June, 2021
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 161 of 2021
Petitioner :- Beni Ram And 2 Others
Respondent :- Deputey Director Of Consolidation And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Anoop Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shivajee Singh Sisodiya
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
This writ petition seeks to question the orders dated 4 January 2021 and an order dated 18 October 1994 passed by the authorities under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 [hereinafter for the sake of brevity to be referred to as "the Act"]. By the first order impugned herein, the Deputy Director Consolidation has proceeded to reject an application moved by the petitioners seeking recall of the order of 18 October 1994 by which the dispute inter partes was purportedly laid to rest in light of a compromise deed dated 20 October 1993. The aforesaid compromise was one which came to be executed by the father of the petitioners, Mohanlal, Dwarika Prasad, Hetram the father of the respondent no. 2 and Mohd Zafar the father of respondents 3 to 8. According to the petitioners the order of 18 October 1994 had failed to accurately and correctly implement and adopt the terms of the compromise referred to above. The petitioners sought recall of the order dated 18 October 1994 by moving applications dated 18 April 2011 and 24 June 2011. These applications came to be initially allowed by the authorities by an order dated 18 October 2011. That order was assailed by the second respondent by way of Writ B. No. 21586 of 202. That writ petition came to be allowed by a learned Judge of the Court in terms of the judgment rendered on 13 August 2019. While allowing the writ petition, the learned Judge held:-
"...However, a reading of the order dated 18.10.2011 shows that the same is a non-speaking order inasmuch as in his aforesaid order, the D.D.C. has not stated the extent to which the alleged compromise dated 20.10.1993 was not implemented through the order dated 18.10.1994. The order does not state the necessary facts to support the findings of the D.D.C. The order dated 18.10.2011 does not recite the facts necessary for recalling the order dated 18.10.1994. Further, the application for recall of the order dated 18.10.1994 was filed by the respondents on 24.6.2011, i.e., almost after 17 years of the order dated 18.10.1994. It is also not apparent from the order dated 18.10.2011 that as to whether the delay in filing the recall application had been condoned by the D.D.C. Without condoning the delay in filing the said application, the D.D.C. could not have recalled his order dated 18.10.1994.
In view of the aforesaid, it is a fit case where the matter should be remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass fresh and reasoned order in Reference Case No. 3587 registered under Section 48(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. The order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the D.D.C. is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly to pass fresh orders in Reference Case No. 3587 registered under Section 48(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. While passing fresh orders, the D.D.C. shall also consider the rights of the petitioner to oppose the recall application filed by the respondents."
Pursuant to the remit by this Court the Deputy Director Consolidation has proceeded to reject the application for recall moved by the petitioners principally on the ground of inordinate delay and the fact that consolidation operations had been brought to a close with the issuance of a notification under Section 52 of the Act.
It becomes relevant to note that one of the principal reasons which weighed with the learned Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the second respondent was a failure on the part of the consolidation authorities to even notice or consider the evident delay caused in moving the application for recall. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in this round of the litigation and while passing the order impugned here has noticed that no plausible explanation was proffered by the petitioners to explain the inordinate delay of 17 years in moving the application for recall. More importantly he has noticed that the father of the petitioners who was a party to the compromise deed had never questioned the order of 18 October 1994 during his lifetime. The impugned order records that a notification under Section 52 has already been issued and that pursuant to closure of consolidation operations revenue records had been corrected and returns provided to various residents of the village concerned. More importantly he has noticed that the rights of the second respondent over Gata No. 429 stood recognised in the provisional consolidation scheme published in terms of Section 20 of the Act and which position was maintained in the final consolidation scheme which came to be published thereafter.
Regard must also be had to the fact that subsequent to the death of the parents of the petitioners, their names also came to be entered in the revenue records in 2008 in accordance with the final orders passed during the course of consolidation proceedings. It is thus manifest that the order of 18 October 1994 not only held the field but was also accepted and acted upon by parties without any protest.
The petitioners after 17 long years sought to unsettle a position and raise a dispute in respect of issues which stood settled more than a decade past. Undisputedly the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to all proceedings under the Act in light of Section 53B. No valid or justifiable cause was either shown or established by the petitioners to warrant condonation of the delay of 17 years. Their application if granted would have necessarily required reopening of a scheme of consolidation which stood finalized in accordance with the provisions made in the Act. In fact the curtains came down on the consolidation operations with the issuance of the notification under Section 52 of the Act. The fact that the father of the petitioners never questioned the order of 18 October 1994 during his lifetime and prior to closure of consolidation operations is also a factor which weighs heavily against the petitioners.
In the end it may only be said that the Deputy Director has rightly placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by this Court mandating the exercise of extreme caution and circumspection in granting applications for recall moved after the issuance of notifications under Section 52. On an overall conspectus of the aforesaid this Court is of the view that the impugned order merits no interference.
The writ petition shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.6.2021
Vivek Kr.
(Yashwant Varma, J.)
