Ram Chandar vs Dy.Director Of Consolidation ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 20450 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 51
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 22458 of 2001
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Chandar
 
Respondent :- Dy.Director Of Consolidation Gorakhpur And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Misra,Vrindavan Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.P. Tiwari,S.S. Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vrindavan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel representing respondent no. 3 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

The petitioner has approached this court against the judgment and orders dated 28.04.2001 and 18.12.2000 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and Consolidation Officer, Rustampur, District- Gorakhpur.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 28.04.2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur shows that the Revision No. 1961 under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 18.12.2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Rustampur, District- Gorakhpur whereby the Consolidation Officer had rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of maintainability and refused to make him party. Further the Consolidation Officer has allowed the restoration of one, Kalpnath and fixed the date for deciding the application dated 08.12.1997 of the respondent no. 3. It has been held by D.D.C that the order is of interim nature and therefore the revision is not maintainable.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impleadment application of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected by the court below. He was required to be heard by the Consolidation Officer. If he is not impleaded in the proceedings then nothing would remain to be decided in proceedings under Section 9.

Counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to be impleaded by the Consolidation Officer and the remaining part of the order dated 28.04.2001 passed by the D.D.C., Gorakhpur may be kept intact.

After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner was required to be heard by the Consolidation Officer and therefore his prayer for impleadment has wrongly been turned down by the Consolidation Officer in the case under Section 9A (2).

The order dated 28.04.2001 passed by the D.D.C., Gorakhpur is modified to the extent that the finding regarding the confirmation of the order of Consolidation Officer by D.D.C denying impleadment of petitioner is not justified and it is hereby set aside. The other findings recorded by the D.D.C in the impugned order dated 28.04.2001 do not call for any interference.

The petitioner shall impleaded as party and shall also be heard by the Consolidation Officer before passing any order.

The writ petition is partly allowed.

Order Date :- 9.12.2022

Rohit