Allahabad High Court
Laxman vs District Deputy Director Of ... on 16 August, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164588
Court No. - 48
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1576 of 2021
Petitioner :- Laxman
Respondent :- District Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Narayan Dutt Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.S.Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N.Pathak, learned Standing Counsel.
2. Petitioner is claiming himself to be title holder of the land in dispute and his objection was allowed by the Consolidation Officer, way back on 23.6.1995. Appeal thereof filed by State was allowed vide order dated 25.2.2004.
3. Petitioner herein thereafter preferred a restoration application before the Appellate Court which was dismissed on 3.7.2009.
4. In these circumstances, petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gautam budh Nagar, which was allowed vide order dated 17.8.2011.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the aforesaid order, a restoration application was filed on behalf of N.T.P.C. since the land in dispute was already handed over to the N.T.P.C. Said restoration application was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 30.3.2017 by a detailed order.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, N.T.P.C. has approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No.1905 of 2019 on 14.7.2019.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that at belated stage, State has filed a restoration application, (copy thereof is not on record) and the same was allowed by an order dated 16.9.2021 and revision petition was reopened with direction to be heard afresh on merits.
8. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the aforesaid order is challenged at the instance of petitioner before this Court. He has vehemently argued and referred several documents which are part of this writ petition to state that claim of the petitioner being owner of the land in dispute was accepted by the State and a process was initiated to grant compensation since the land in dispute has already been used by the N.T.P.C. and the possibility to return the same does not exist.
9. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that restoration application was erroneously allowed and factor of knowledge was also considered contrary to records. He further submitted that the impugned order passed on the restoration application is contrary to law as declared by Full Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Shivraji & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad & Ors, (1997) 88 RD 562.
10. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the matter has not only been reopened at the revisional stage, but the parties including the petitioner are at liberty to submit all the legally permissible grounds before the authority concerned. However, he has not been able to convince the Court about the effect of judgment in Smt. Shivraji & Ors, (supra) in favour of the petitioner.
11. In view of the above referred submissions and the records available, this Court is of the opinion that some of the aspects and facts were not considered or bought on record before the Revisional Court, as such the restoration application filed on behalf of N.T.P.C. was rejected earlier as well as there were certain communications between the Department that the petitioner may be compensated, therefore, in the interest of justice, impugned order dated 16.9.2021 passed by District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate (Administration), District-Gautam Budh Nagar, respondent no.1 is set-aside and the matter is remanded to District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate (Administration), District-Gautam Budh Nagar, to pass a fresh order in accordance with law on the restoration application after hearing the parties and taking note of the above referred observations and position of law.
12. State is also directed to have specific instructions as to whether they are in the process to compensate the petitioner or the owner of the land in question and present the same before Revisional Authority.
13. Aforesaid exercise shall be concluded within a period of three months from today.
14. It is made clear that parties are at liberty to raise factual and legal issues before the authority concerned which shall be considered by it in accordance with law.
15. With the aforesaid observations/direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.8.2023
SB
