Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar And 5 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 51
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1786 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar And 5 Others
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 8 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arunesh Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Murli Dhar Mishra,Sachida Nand Tiwari
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 10 and learned counsel for the caveators- respondent nos. 4 to 9 and perused the record.
Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation correcting some clerical mistake in the previous order dated 15.06.2022 passed by him in Revision No. 006 of 2021 (Indrashan and others vs. Raghupati and others).
Record reveals that after chequered history of the litigation between the parties with respect to Khata No. 38 and 39 the matter has been remitted before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to re-examine the right and title of the parties in pursuance of the decree passed by the civil court in O.S. No. 168 of 1938, vide order dated 10.03.2021 passed by this Court in Writ-B No. 593 of 2019. In pursuance of the remand order dated 10.03.2021 passed by this Court, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has finally decided the revision, vide order dated 15.06.2022. Pointing out some discrepancy /clerical mistake in the order dated 15.06.2022 to the effect that same has not been decided in consonance with the conditions of the compromise decree dated 21.01.1939, as directed by this Court in its order dated 10.03.2021, contesting respondent has moved correction application dated 16.06.2022.. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has entertained the application dated 16.06.2022 and, accordingly, passed fresh order dated 07.07.2022 by making minor correction in the earlier order dated 15.06.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has, in fact, reviewed his earlier order dated 15.06.2022 for which he has inherent lack of jurisdiction.
Opposing the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the caveators has contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has simply complied the order dated 10.03.2021 passed by this Court in Writ-B No. 593 of 2019. There was some clerical mistake in the order dated 15.06.2022 which has not been passed in consonance with the judgment dated 21.01.1939 passed in the original suit. It is further contended that no fresh right and title of the parties has been examined by the Deputy Director of Consolidation but the order has been passed only to correct the previous order in the light of the direction issued by this Court.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 07.07.2022 reveals that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has simply corrected the clerical mistakes occurred in the earlier order date 15.06.2022 considering the fact that the previous order, which is sought to be corrected, could not be passed in consonance with the conditions as arrived at between the parties in compromise decree dated 21.01.1939 passed in Original Suit No. 168 of 1938 with respect to the Khata No. 38 and 39. Vide impugned order dated 07.07.2022, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has done nothing but to comply the direction of this Court as passed in Writ-B No. 593 of 2019. Incorporating correction in the previous order, in light of the direction dated 10.03.2021, cannot be said to be a review of the previous order, inasmuch as same has been corrected in consonance with the decree dated 21.01.1939 passed in O.S. No. 168 of 1938.
In this conspectus, as above, I do not find any force in the submissions as raised by the counsel for the petitioners in assailing the order dated 07.07.2022 to the effect that the order impugned is a review order. From any stretch of imagination the order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be said to be review of the previous order dated 15.06.2022. There is nothing on record to demonstrate as to how petitioners are prejudiced, or is there any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to them, due to the order under challenge. This Court found no illegality, perversity and ambiguity in the order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as to warrant indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Resultantly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit and misconceived, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
However, before parting the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as on today crops of the petitioners are standing on the field (plot in question), therefore, they may be granted some time to harvest the crops and to deliver the possession of the land in question to the respondents.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein, as per statement made by the counsel for the petitioners, crops of the petitioners are standing on the field, it is provided that for the period of two months or till the harvesting of crops, whichever is earlier, parties are directed to maintain status quo on spot.
It is further clarified that the interim protection granted, as above, for maintaining status quo will not impend any other proceeding going on before any court competent in compliance of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Order Date :- 20.10.2022
Pkb/
