Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sukhia vs D.D.C. And Others on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:169914
Court No. - 48
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2151 of 1976
Petitioner :- Smt. Sukhia
Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manjari Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- M.C. Agarwal,K.B. Garg,S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Order on Substitution Application No. 328173/2009
Heard learned counsel for petitioner on substitution application.
This is an application seeking substitution of legal heirs of petitioner no. 3/1.
Substitution Application is allowed.
Let substitution be carried out during the course of day.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 1/2018
Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
Cause shown is sufficient.
Delay Condonation Application is allowed.
Order on Substitution Application No. 2/2018
Heard learned counsel for petitioner on substitution application.
This is an application seeking substitution of legal heirs of petitioner no.2.
Substitution Application is allowed.
Let substitution be carried out during the course of day.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 3/2018
Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
Cause shown is sufficient.
Delay Condonation Application is allowed.
Order on Substitution Application No. 4/2018
Heard learned counsel for petitioner on substitution application.
This is an application seeking substitution of legal heirs of petitioner no.4/2.
Substitution Application is allowed.
Let substitution be carried out during the course of day.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 5/2018
Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
Cause shown is sufficient.
Delay Condonation Application is allowed.
Order on Substitution Application No. 6/2018
Heard learned counsel for petitioner on substitution application.
This is an application seeking substitution of legal heirs of petitioner no.7/1.
Substitution Application is allowed.
Let substitution be carried out during the course of day.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 7/2018
Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
Cause shown is sufficient.
Delay Condonation Application is allowed.
Order on Substitution Application No. 8/2018
Heard learned counsel for petitioner on substitution application.
This is an application seeking substitution of legal heirs of petitioner no.8/4.
Substitution Application is allowed.
Let substitution be carried out during the course of day.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 9/2018
Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
Cause shown is sufficient.
Delay Condonation Application is allowed.
Order on Substitution Application No. 10/2018
Heard learned counsel for petitioner on substitution application.
This is an application seeking substitution of legal heirs of petitioner no.16.
Substitution Application is allowed.
Let substitution be carried out during the course of day.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 11/2018
Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
Cause shown is sufficient.
Delay Condonation Application is allowed.
Order on Substitution Application No. 12/2018
Heard learned counsel for petitioner on substitution application.
This is an application seeking substitution of legal heirs of petitioner no.17.
Substitution Application is allowed.
Let substitution be carried out during the course of day.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 13/2018
Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
Cause shown is sufficient.
Delay Condonation Application is allowed.
Order on Substitution Application No. 14/2018
Heard learned counsel for petitioner on substitution application.
This is an application seeking substitution of legal heirs of petitioner no.19.
Substitution Application is allowed.
Let substitution be carried out during the course of day.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 15/2018
Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
Cause shown is sufficient.
Delay Condonation Application is allowed.
Order on Substitution Application No. 16/2018
Heard learned counsel for petitioner on substitution application.
This is an application seeking substitution of legal heirs of respondent no.2/1.
Substitution Application is allowed at the risk of petitioners.
Let substitution be carried out during the course of day.
Order on memo of petition
1. Ms. Manjari Singh, learned counsel for petitioners has raised a legal issue that since in the present case, Consolidation Officer has declared a part of land in dispute as abadi after considering the evidence on record which was affirmed by Appellate Authority by a reasoned order, thereafter, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, under revisional jurisdiction has erred in law by interfering with concurrent findings of facts.
2. She has further placed reliance on paragraph nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23 and 24 of judgment of this Court at Lucknow Bench in Ram Udit vs. D.D.C., 2014 (9) ADJ 374.
3. No one has appeared on behalf of respondents to contest this petition.
4. Sri A.K. Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State submits that since Revisional Authority has considered the evidence on record in its correct perspective, therefore, it was within the jurisdiction.
5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
6. It is not in dispute that findings returned by Consolidation Officer in favour of petitioners was affirmed by the Appellate Authority, however, later on disturbed by the Revisional Authority.
7. There is a substance in argument of learned counsel for petitioners that Revisional Authority has acted beyond its jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent finding and judgment of Ram Udit (supra) supports her submissions.
8. Considering above submissions, the Court can allow this writ petition, however, taking note that this writ petition is of the year 1976 and contesting respondents are not appearing as well as the submission of learned Standing Counsel that in a circumstance where Revisional Authority is of the view that evidence was not correctly appreciated, the Revisional Authority may refer the case to Appellate Authority.
9. In view of above submissions, impugned orders dated 09.07.1975 and 15.11.1975 are hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to Revisional Authority to consider the case afresh, after hearing the parties and will pass a fresh order.
10. in case Revisional Authority finds that evidence were not correctly appreciated, it will be open for it to remit back the matter to Appellate Authority.
11. The aforesaid exercise shall be concluded within a period of six months from today, if there is no legal impediment. Petitioners will file amended memo of parties as the case is of the year 1976 and number of parties have died and their legal heirs are on record.
10. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in part.
Order Date :- 23.8.2023
Nirmal Sinha
