Allahabad High Court
Awadh Nath vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 3 August, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155364
Court No. - 48
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5418 of 2018
Petitioner :- Awadh Nath
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Mau And 9 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Janam Singh,Basant Kumar Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhila Nand Pandey,Arun Kumar Pundir,Arvind Kumar Singh,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Basant Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents.
2. This is the second round of litigation.
3. In the first round, respondents herein have approached this Court by way of filing Writ-B No.17358 of 2008, which was allowed vide order dated 19.12.2016 and the impugned order therein dated 1.2.2008 was quashed and the matter was remitted back to Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding the revision afresh in accordance with law.
4. Co-ordinate Bench has observed certain reasons for setting-aside the impugned order and relevant part of said order is reproduced below:
"I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation though takes into consideration the difficulty which are likely to be faced by the contesting respondents as a result of a udan chak having been carved out in their favour but it does not take into consideration the hardship which the petitioners are likely to face as a result of carving out of a udan chak for them and in depriving them of the chak over their original holding Gata No. 89. In the opinion of the Court, in case the petitioners were being given a udan chak, that too at the revisional stage, the revisional authority should have had regard to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, which provides that effort should be made to allot a compact area to a tenure holder at the place he holds the largest part of his holding.
In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 1.2.2008 is not sustainable in law and is accordingly quashed.
The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding the revision afresh, in accordance with law."
5. On remand, Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the impugned order 30.8.2018, whereby without considering the rival submissions has simply followed the observations made by co-ordinate Bench as referred above and passed the order whereby Chaks were amended.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that his grievance was not considered.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order was passed in accordance with law and all the chakholders were allowed chaks on their respective original holdings, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order.
8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.
9. Relevant part of the order passed by co-ordinate Bench as well as of the impugned order have been referred above.
10. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has given reasons for setting-aside the impugned order therein and directed to decide the Revision Petition afresh.
11. It was not the intention of Court to direct the Deputy Director of Consolidation to follow the observations made in the order and it was kept open for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass an order in accordance with law after hearing the parties. However, as reflected above, Deputy Director of Consolidation has simply followed the observations made by co-ordinate Bench and passed the impugned order dated 30.8.2018 purportedly on the ground that all the Chakdars have chaks on their original Gatas, but grievance of petitioner was not considered. Even there is no reference of any submission made by either of parties, therefore, it is apparent that Deputy Director of Consolidation has not decided the revision petition on the basis of rival submissions and records.
12. Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Anr. Vs. Ajay Kumar Sood, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1067 has reiterated that while passing any judgment, it must be accompanied by issue, rival submissions, consideration and reasons thereof. However, on the face of it, they are absent in the impugned order.
13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.8.2018 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mau, respondent no.1 is set-aside the the matter is remanded again to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties and pass an order in terms of the judgment passed in State Bank of India (supra).
14. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case at this stage and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mau, respondent no.1 is directed to decided the matter preferably within a period of six months from today in accordance with law if there is no legal impediment and in case any application for interim relief is filed, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mau, respondent no.1 will also consider the same.
15. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.8.2023
SB
