Nizamuddin And 2 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11621 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 929 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Nizamuddin And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 7 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jamil Ahamad Azmi,A.P.Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ishir Sripat
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rahul Sripat, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ishir Sripat, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 7 and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 8 and perused the record.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the order proposed to be passed, this Court proceeds to decide the present writ petition finally at the admission stage with the consent of the parties without calling for their respective affidavits.

Challenge in the present writ petition is the order dated 20.01.2022 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 1) in Revision No. 81, under Section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity "U.P.C.H. Act").

Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition are that Jagai (predecessor in the interest of respondent nos. 2 to 7) was proposed Chak No. 70 during the consolidation operation. Likewise predecessor in the interest of petitioner, namely Jamaluddin was also proposed Chak No. 75 at two places. Being dissatisfied with the chak allotted to Jagai, he had filed an objection under Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act, inter alia, on the ground that he has not been allotted original chak and the land allotted in his chak is under valued. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 18.03.1975, has dismissed the objection filed by Jagai. Having being aggrieved with the order of Consolidation Officer, Jagai has preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 28.03.1974. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of Jagai, has dismissed the same vide order dated 26.06.1974 with an observation that the revisionist has been proposed chak over his original holding. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jagai has preferred a writ petition before this Court, being Writ Petition No. 7254 of 1974 (Jagai vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others). This Court has allowed aforesaid writ petition, vide order dated 03.03.2006, relegating the parties before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to get the matter decided de novo after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. In pursuance of the remand order dated 03.03.2006, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed a fresh order dated 19.02.2013 (Annexure No. 6) allowing the revision filed on behalf of Jagai. Having being aggrieved with the order dated 19.02.2013, being an ex parte order, petitioners have filed restoration application dated 30.03.2015, which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 24.02.2018 (Annexure No. 7) restoring the revision and giving a fresh opportunity of hearing to the parties. During pendency of the revision, Nizamuddin (petitioner no. 1) has filed his detailed objection dated 01.12.2021 (Annexure No. 8). After hearing the parties the Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed fresh order daed 20.01.2022 affirming the earlier order dated 19.02.2013. Having being aggrieved with the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the respondent no. 1, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally passed the impugned order without adverting to the grievances as made by the petitioners and without going through the objection filed on their behalf. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally affirmed the earlier order dated 19.02.2013, which itself suffers infirmity. In the order dated 19.02.2013 the Deputy Director of Consolidation has given a perverse finding with respect to the original plots of the petitioners. It is next submitted that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal, unwarranted under the law and perverse, therefore, is liable to be quashed.

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents has contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the order after examining the entire evidence available on the record. Earlier order dated 19.02.2013 was already recalled by the subsequent order dated 24.02.2018 and fresh order dated 20.01.2022 has been passed after reappraisal of record. It is further submitted that in the memo of revision several other respondents were also arrayed but in the present writ petition only heirs and legal representatives of Jagai have been made party. It is next submitted that there is no illegality, perversity and ambiguity in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which may warrant indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, present writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.

Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it reveals that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 20.01.2022, has simply affirmed the earlier order dated 19.02.2013 and reiterated the finding given in said order. Perusal of the order dated 19.02.2013 reveals that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has emphasized the original holding of both the parties and accordingly he has tried to shift the parties over their respective original holdings. In support of his observation the Deputy Director of Consolidation has given a finding that Plot Nos. 186, 189 and 190 are the original holdings of Jagai, whereas Plot Nos. 874, 875, 876, 799 and 800 are original holdings of opposite party in revision (predecessor in the interest of petitioners herein). Learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondent has emphasized that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has indicated all the respondents including the Jamaluddin (predecessor in the interest of petitioners), therefore, these plots belong to other opposite parties who were arrayed in the cause title of the revision, namely, Badruddin etc.

Perusal of C.H. Form-23 (Annexure No. 2) belongs to Jamaluddin reveals that Plot Nos. 874, 875, 876, 799 and 800, as pointed out by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, are not original holdings of Jamaluddin. It appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has given such finding under some misconception which, prima facie, appears to be perverse finding beyond the record. The amendment chart appended to the judgment dated 19.02.2013 evince the name of chak holders, who are affected due to the order dated 19.02.2013. In the amendment chart only names of Jagai and Jamaluddin have been mentioned, whereby their chaks appear to be interchanged. Counsel for the petitioners has hammered the amendment chart pointing out the discrimination made to the petitioners, wherein entire second chak of the petitioners has been shown to be taken from his possession and given to Jagai. It is submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has non-suited the claim of the petitioners and miserably failed to advert to their grievance.

I find substance in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has given a perverse finding with respect to the original plots belong to the petitioners, which requires reconsideration of the matter.

Resultantly, present writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (Annexure No. 1) is hereby quashed. Revision is restored to file and parties are relegated before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to get the matter decided de novo.

Considering the quite old matter, the Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby expected to decide the revision expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

It is expected that it should be decided by reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned without granting unnecessary adjournments.

Order Date :- 30.8.2022

Pkb/