Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Irfan vs Deputy Director Of ... on 7 December, 2022
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 748 of 2022
Petitioner :- Mohd. Irfan
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Sitapur And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manzar Ali Khan,Akbar Ali Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the State-respondents has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel and. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following relief which reads as under:-
"1. A suitable, writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned judgment and orders dated 24.08.2022, 06.04.2021, 30.01.2020, 07.02.2019, 12.06.2013 and 23.05.2008 passed by learned opposite parties 1 to 3 as contained in annexure nos.14, 12, 10, 8, 5 and 4 respectively to the writ petition.
2. A suitable, writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to maintain status quo on spot in respect of possession."
The question which has been raised in the instant petition while assailing the orders impugned which have been detailed in the prayer clause as reproduced above emanates from the fact that an order dated 23.05.2008 was passed by the Consolidation Officer. A copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.4 and in view thereof Plot No.351 was recorded in the name of Fakira Singh and Agne Singh, sons of Late Devi Singh.
It also noticed that upon the death of Fakira Singh upon the Will the name of Darbari Singh and in place of Agne Singh, Rajendra Singh and Avadesh Singh was also incorporated.
The said order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 23.05.2008 was duly implemented in terms of Rule 109 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 on 12.06.2013.
In the interregnum, the petitioner had also filed his objection under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on 02.12.2005 which was considered and came to be decided on 07.04.2006. In pursuance of the order passed in favour of the petitioner on 07.04.2006, he also moved an application under Rule 109 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954.
It is at this stage that in respect of the same Plot No.351 which was deleted and thereafter on Plot No.615, the petitioner was also given a some part of his holding. In terms of the order dated 12.06.2013 which was passed in favour of the private respondent. They were also given rights over the said Plot No.615. This is the cause of contention between the parties.
It will also be noticed that the private respondent preferred an appeal wherein the petitioner was also a party and by means of order dated 07.02.2019 the Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to be decided afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision which came to be dismissed on 30.01.2020 and in pursuance thereof the matter is still engaging the attention of the Consolidation Officer.
It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner now has instituted the proceedings before this Court seeking to assail all the previous orders including the order dated 23.05.2008 which was passed in favour of the private respondent.
Having considered the submission as well as from the perusal of the material on record, it could not be disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of the order of remand dated 07.02.2019, the matter is still alive before the Consolidation Officer. Since the revision preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected and the entire matter is open to be contested on merits before the Consolidation Officer as well the fact that interference at this stage may lead to multiplicity of proceedings and may also complicate the matter where it can be decided by the Consolidation Officer, accordingly without interfering at this stage, this Court is of the opinion that it will be fruitful that the matter pending before the Consolidation Officer is expedited.
Accordingly, it is provided that the Consolidation Officer shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment expedite the proceedings and endeavour to decide the same preferably within a period of four months from the date, a copy of this order is placed before the aforesaid court.
With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.12.2022
ank
