Deshraj (Since Deceased) And 7 ... vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 22585 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:167389
 
Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2928 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Deshraj (Since Deceased) And 7 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Karan,Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh
 
and
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2931 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Balu (Since Deceased) And 6 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Karan,Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Sunil Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, Advocate for petitioners in both writ petitions.

2. I find merit in argument of learned Senior Advocate that in the first round of litigation, when the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition being No. 1833 of 1982, this Court by a reasoned and detailed order dated 18.08.2020 has set aside the impugned order therein with certain observations. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation without, even adverting to referred observations, has again committed same error.

3. Learned Senior Advocate has pointed out certain observations in the order dated 18.08.2020 passed by this Court referred above and for reference, they are mentioned below :-

"Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners is right that while accepting the patta in favour of the petitioners, but holding it to be an asami patta, appears to be a third case, that was carved out by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, without being pleaded by either party."

xxxx

"This Court would have no hesitation in accepting the petitioners' case determinatively, but for the fact that the Consolidation Authorities did not have before them the resolutions of the Gaon Sabha, certified copies of which have been brought on record in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1655 of 1982. This Court is, therefore, of opinion that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who is invested with wide powers as the final Court of fact and law, in terms of Explanation-3, appended to Section 48, vide U.P. Act No.3 of 2002, retrospectively w.e.f. 10.11.1980, would be best left to examine and determine the matter finally."

xxxx

"Needless to add that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, while deciding the Revision will bear in mind this Court's remarks about the petitioners' rights and will not carve out a third case, or introduce conjecture into his findings."

4. Ms. Tanu Rupanwal, learned Standing Counsel for State and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha are not able to contradict above submissions.

5. Considering above submissions and taking note that Deputy Director of Consolidation, in a very cursory manner and without even referring above observations made by this Court, has passed the order and it appears error committed earlier has been repeated.

6. In view of above, the impugned order dated 15.03.2023 is liable to be set aside, hence, set aside and matter is remitted back to Revisional Authority to pass a fresh order after duly considering observations made in the judgment passed by this Court on 18.08.2020 and some of observations thereof are already mentioned in preceding paragraph, expeditiously, after hearing rival parties, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months.

7. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in part.

Order Date :- 21.8.2023

Nirmal Sinha