Allahabad High Court
Ram Singh vs State Of U P And 8 Others on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 51
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1303 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ram Singh
Respondent :- State Of U P And 8 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Upendra Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing respondents no. 1 to 4 and learned counsel for the Caveator-respondent no. 5 (Vijay Singh).
Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.') affirming the order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'S.O.C.') in appeal filed on behalf of contesting respondent no. 5.
Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition are that proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act') has been decided in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 03.05.2005 passed by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of statement made by respondent no. 5. At a very belated stage, respondent no. 5 has assailed the order dated 03.05.2005 in appeal filed on 06.10.2016. The S.O.C. vide order dated 25.02.2021, in pursuance of the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by this Court, has condoned the delay in filing the appeal and fixed 10.03.2021 as the date for final hearing. On 10.03.2021, the case could not be taken up due to non-availability of the Presiding Officer, therefore, 24.03.2021 was fixed as the date for hearing. Having been aggrieved, revision has been filed on behalf of Ram Singh (the present petitioner) along with respondents no. 06 to 09 assailing the order dated 10.03.2021 taking several grounds to assail the condonation of delay. The D.D.C., vide impugned order dated 11.04.2022, has dismissed the revision. Being dis-satisfied with the said order, instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alone.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the D.D.C. has miserably failed to examine the merits of the order dated 25.02.2021 by which delay was condoned in filing the appeal. It is further submitted that there is a gross negligence and deliberate inaction at the part of respondent no. 5 in filing the appeal which has illegally been ignored by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Muncipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai reported in A.I.R. (2012) S.C., 1629 and judgment of this court in the case of Arun Kumar & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others (Writ-B No. 1613 of 2011) decided on 22.07.2022. It is next submitted that the order passed by the D.D.C. is liable to be quashed being illegal, unwarranted under law and tainted with irregularities.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner and contended that the D.D.C. has not committed any error in dismissing the revision which was, in fact, filed against the order dated 10.03.2021 by which normal date was fixed for hearing. Nothing has been decided by the S.O.C. to be examined by the higher consolidation court. It is further contended that merits of condonation of delay, as decided vide order dated 25.02.2021, cannot be made subject matter of revision inasmuch as the delay condonation order dated 25.02.2021 was not assailed before the revisional court. It is next contended that there is no illegality, perversity or ambiguity in the order passed by the D.D.C. warranting indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.
Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record it reveals that after chequered history of litigation the S.O.C. has condoned the delay, vide order dated 25.02.2021, in filing the appeal dated 06.10.2016 on behalf of contesting respondent no. 5. While passing the order dated 25.02.2021, condoning the delay, the S.O.C. has fixed next date as 10.03.2021 to hear the appeal on merits. On the next date fixed the matter could not be taken up owing to absence of Presiding Officer, consequently, 24.03.2021 was fixed as the next date for hearing of the appeal.
Perusal of memo of revision dated 08.04.2021 reveals that the present petitioner (Ram Singh) along with four other persons, who are arrayed as respondents no. 6 to 9 in the instant writ petition, have preferred revision against the order dated 10.03.2021 by which general date was fixed for hearing in appeal. The D.D.C. has dismissed the revision on the ground that the order dated 10.03.2021 is an interlocutory order, therefore, revision is not maintainable against the said order. Assailing the order of the D.D.C., learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that revision was, in fact, filed against the order dated 25.02.2021 by which delay was condoned, however, inadvertently due to clerical error order dated 10.03.2021 has been transcribed in the memo of revision.
This Court found no force in the submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the memo of revision the order dated 10.03.2021 was inadvertently transcribed. Perusal of memo of revision reveals that on the top, order dated 10.03.2021 has been mentioned being challenged by the revisionist. Apart from that, in the prayer clause of revision as well, there is a reference of the order dated 10.03.2021 which has been sought to be quashed by the revisionist. Not only this much, in paragraph 9 of the memo of revision it has specifically been mentioned that the order dated 10.03.2021 is not liable to be stand, therefore, it should be quashed. In this view of the matter, the revisionist before the D.D.C. has multiple times mentioned the order dated 10.03.2021 showing his grievance against the said order. In the entire memo of revision, there is no reference of the order dated 25.02.021 by which delay in filing the appeal has been condoned by the S.O.C.
In my considered opinion, the D.D.C. has rightly dismissed the revision on the ground of maintainability inasmuch as vide order dated 10.03.2021 simple date has been fixed for hearing of appeal and nothing has been decided finally by the court concerned with respect to right and title of the parties or passed any order adversely affecting the interest of the parties concerned. Cases, as cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable in the facts of the present case, therefore, it would not be befitting to make any comment/observation against the order dated 25.02.2021 condoning the delay which has not been assailed before the court competent.
In this conspectus as above, this Court is of the considered view that the D.D.C. has rightly dismissed the revision filed against the order dated 10.03.2021. There is no force in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the order impugned passed by the D.D.C. There is no illegality, perversity or ambiguity in the order under challenge before this Court.
Resultantly, instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.10.2022
VR
