Allahabad High Court
Ram Subhag Verma vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 801 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ram Subhag Verma
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sultanpur And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Vikram,Prabhat Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.
Under challenge is the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur whereby on application moved by the petitioner under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, has been dismissed.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an order came to be passed in favour of the petitioner in the consolidation operation on 07.09.1969 which was amended and corrected as 25.09.1979. It is thereafter the petitioner on 11.10.2017 moved an application for correction of the records to include the name of the petitioner on the basis of the order aforesaid.
It is further submitted that on report was called for which mentioned and validated, passing of the order dated 07.06.1969 amended order dated 25.09.1979. However, alongwith the said report when the matter came up before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, he relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Arjun Vs. State of U.P. and 15 others, Writ-B No.10 of 2019 decided on 22.01.2019 and held that in view of the dictum of this Court in the aforesaid judgment of Arjun (supra), the application was not maintainable as it has been filed after much delay apart from the fact that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not have the jurisdiction.
Submission is that from the perusal of the dictum of this Court in the case of Arjun (supra) it related to an application for correction in terms of Section 42-A and it did not refer to the provision of Section 48(3). It is further submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is bad.
Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has raised an objection and submits that there is a doubt over the entire proceedings for the reason that the alleged order is said to have been passed in the year 1969 and amended as 25.09.1979. After notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, all the records are delivered back to the revenue authorities. In absence of any record, even the report which is relied upon by the petitioner could not have any basis apart from this in view of Section 27(3), it is appropriate for the petitioner to have approached the revenue authorities in order to get his name recorded in terms of the alleged order dated 25.09.1979.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also from the perusal of the material on record, it could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of 1979 of which he seeks implementation for which an application was moved after the records have been handed over to the revenue authorities as the notification in terms of Section 52 has already been published.
In view of the aforesaid, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere leaving it open for the petitioner to move the appropriate authority in terms of Section 27 before the revenue court. In case if such an application is moved by the petitioner within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the authorities and decided expeditiously strictly in accordance with law after hearing the parties and verifying the records.
With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 15.12.2022
ank
