Allahabad High Court
Shravan Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 7 July, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1346 of 2022
Petitioner :- Shravan Kumar Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3.
The present writ petition has been for the following relief:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2022 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur, District Ghazipur, respondent no. 3 in Case No. 0015 of 2022 (Roop Narayan Vs. Sukhiya) under Section 48(1) of U.P. C.H. Act, 1953 and order dated 13.04.2022 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur, District Ghazipur in Case No. 0013 of 2001 (Roop Narayan Vs. Smt. Sukhiya)under Section 48(3) of U.P. C.H. Act, 1953 as well as judgment and order dated 14.03.2001 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur, District Ghazipur in reference no. 370 (Roop Narayan Vs. Smt. Sukhiya) under Section 48(3) of U.P. C.H. Act, 1953.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 3 to consider the claim of petitioner regarding Arazi no. 73 situated at village Nasirpur, Pargana-Sadiyabad, Tehsil-Saidpur, District Ghazipur after re-heard the matter to both the parties.
(iii) Issue any other suitable writ order or direction in which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
The present writ petition is arising out of reference proceeding under Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity U.P. C.H. Act). The facts culled out from the pleadings of the petition that one Roop Narayan, respondent no. 5 has moved an application dated 14.09.1993 (Annexure No. 5) under Section 48 (3) of U.P. C.H. Act to correct the Chak Map with respect of plot no. 31,32 and 33. The application moved by the respondent no. 5 was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation ex parte vide order dated 05.12.1995 (Annexure No. 8). Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 05.12.1995, restoration application dated 12.01.1996 has been filed by Smt. Sukhiya W/o Balli (predecessor in the interest of the petitioner) and Smt. Muniya W/o Chandar Yadav. After due consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and the submissions advanced on their behalf, Deputy Director of Consolidation has restored the reference and modified the earlier order dated 05.12.1995, vide it's subsequent order dated 14.03.2001. It appears that both the parties were aggrieved with the order dated 14.03.2001. Feeling aggrieved Jagjeeven and Nandlal happens to be the sons of Roop Narayan (Respondent No. 5) have moved a modification application dated 12.04.2001 (Annexure No. 15) to correct the third map appended with order dated 14.03.2001. The aforesaid modification application dated 12.04.2001 is rejected vide order dated 13.04.2022. It appears that against this order dated 13.04.2022, the present petitioner has filed a recall application on the same day i.e. 13.04.2022 with a request to reconsider the application dated 12.04.2001 filed on behalf of the Jagjeeven and others. On the application dated 13.04.2022 filed on behalf of the petitioner fresh order was passed on 20.05.2022 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the application dated 12.04.2001.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no effective opportunity of hearing had been given to the petitioner before passing the order dated 14.03.2001 despite the fact that a detailed objection was filed on his behalf with respect to the dimensions and location of the property belongs to his share. It is further submitted that against the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation the petitioner has filed the recall application on the same day. He has also filed a detailed objection, but, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the earlier application dated 12.04.2001, which was already decided vide order dated 13.04.2022 and no order has been passed on the recall application dated 13.04.2022 filed by the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner is effected due to order dated 14.03.2001 against which he has filed a detailed objection in a restoration application moved on behalf of the other side, but, no fare trial has been given to the case of petitioner.
He has further submitted that the impugned order dated 20.05.2022 has illegally been passed without considering the fact that the application dated 12.04.2001 has already been decided earlier vide order dated 13.04.2022. It is next submitted that the impugned order dated 20.05.2022 being cryptic, illegal and ambiguous, is liable to be rejected.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel contended that the present writ petition is misconceived and has been filed on the frivolous grounds. Petitioner has never challenged the order dated 14.03.2001 against whom he has shown his grievances. Right and title of the present petitioner over the land in question or any modification in the map appended to the order dated 14.03.2001 can not be examined in a restoration application filed on behalf of the other side, which was rejected. The applicant of the restoration application dated 12.04.2001 has never made any endeavour to assail the rejection order dated 13.04.2022 passed on their restoration application.
Carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The question for consideration lies in narrow compass qua grievance of the petitioner against the order dated 14.03.2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has ever challenged the order dated 14.03.2001, so far it is passed against him. Filing any objection in the restoration application filed on behalf of third party would not give right to the present petitioner to get his right and title examined over the property in question or get the map corrected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is failed to strengthen his submissions assailing the impugned order. He is not in a position to contradict the fact that the order dated 14.03.2001, so far it was passed against the present petitioner, was never challenged before any competent Court on his behalf.
The grievance of the petitioner against the order dated 14.03.2001, if any, can more appropriately be redressed by the Court competent in an appropriate proceeding to be moved by the petitioner by way of recall application or any other remedy as available under the law, as advised. I do not find any illegality, perversity and ambiguity in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and no ground is made out to interfere in the said order in exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The present petition, being devoid on merits, is dismissed with no order as to the cost.
Order Date :- 7.7.2022
SK Srivastava
