Ram Kumar vs Deputy Director Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3611 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 18
 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 392 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Ram Kumar
 
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation/Addl. District Magistrate(Judicial) Sitapur And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yuga Raj Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard Sri Yuga Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel representing the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has impeached the order dated 24.05.2022 passed by the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Sitapur in Revision No. 2017531064000051 (Ram Kumar v. Chhatrapal and others) filed under Section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") and order dated 25.10.2019 passed by the respondent No. 1 in the said revision as also the order dated 16.06.2017 passed by the respondent No. 2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District Sitapur in Appeal No. 30/146 (Chhatrapal and others v. Ram Kumar) filed under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1953.

The brief facts of the case are to the effect that an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer concerned on 08.03.2016 in the proceedings initiated under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953, wherein, as appears that the claim of private respondents/Chhatrapal and others was ignored by the Consolidation Authority concerned, as such, being aggrieved by the order dated 08.03.2016, an Appeal No. 30/146 (Chhatrapal and others v. Ram Kumar) was filed under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1953, which was allowed vide order dated 16.06.2017. The Appellate Authority after interfering in the order dated 08.03.2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer remanded the matter back for deciding the same afresh by a reasoned and speaking order on merits after providing proper opportunity to the parties to the litigation to adduce evidence.

The order of the Appellate Authority dated 16.06.2017 was challenged before the Revisional Authority in the proceedings initiated under Section 48(1) of the Act of 1953 by means of a Revision No. 2017531064000051 (Ram Kumar v. Chhatrapal and others). The Revisional Authority, after observing that the Consolidation Officer on the claim of the private respondents has not recorded the reasons for conclusion and also not provided proper opportunity to the parties to the litigation to adduce evidence, declined to interfere in the order of Appellate Authority 16.06.2017 vide its order dated 25.10.2019. The relevant observation of the Revisional Authority in the order dated 25.10.2019 on reproduction reads as under:-

"eSaus mHk;i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dks lquk rFkk vihy i=koyh ,oa pdcUnh vf/kdkjh U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij voyksdu fd;kA vihy i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd vihy U;k;ky; us rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fltjk [kkunku cukrs gq, ,oa mHk;i{kksa }kjk izLrqr rdksZa ds vk/kkj ij vihy Lohdkj fd;k gS] ftlesa ;g Li"V fd;k gS fd iqjkuh pdcUnh esa xkVk la[;k&1121 ,oa 1255 ftl ukjk;u iq= dYyw ds uke rugk ntZ Fkh ,oa ukjk;u ds 04 iq= Fks] mlesa :Lre iq= ukjk;u dk gh uke rugk ntZ gqvk Fkk vkSj mldh ekfy;r dk tks pd cuk Fkk] mldh ubZ xkVk la[;k&804 cuhA blls Li"V gS fd mRrjnkrk jkeyky] yf{keu] cYnso] :Lre iq= ukjk;u ds uke dh Hkwfe Fkh vkSj blh vk/kkj ij vihyk.V }kjk lg[kkrsnkjh dh ekax dh x;h gS] fdUrq pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us mDr fcUnq ij dksbZ rkfdZd foospuk u djds ljljh vkns'k ikfjr fd;k] tcfd pdcUnh U;k;ky;ksa }kjk i{kksa ds [email protected]/kdkjksa ds laca/k esa vfUre fu.kZ; fd;s tkrs gSa vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa ;fn vius [email protected]/kdkjksa ls fcuk rdZ ,oa lk{; izLrqr fd;s lnk ds fy, oafpr gks tk;saxs] D;ksafd fookfnr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa og vius [email protected]/kdkjksa ds fo"k; esa jktLo vFkok flfoy U;k;ky; esa okn nk;j djus ls /kkjk&49 tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e ckf/kr gksxsaA vr% mfpr :i ls cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh us mDr okn dks pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ds ;gka mHk;i{kksa dks lqudj ,oa lk{; ysdj okn dk fuLrkj.k xq.k&nks"k ij djus gsrq tks izfrisz"k.k fd;k gS] og U;k;ksfpr ,oa fof/klaxr gSA blesa fdlh izdkj ds gLr{ksi dh vko';drk izrhr ugha gksrh gSA fuxjkuh cyghu gS] fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij vkns'k gqvk fd %&

vkns'k

fuxjkuh jkedqekj iq= :Lre cyghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr dh tkrh gSA i=koyh ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh nkf[ky n¶rj gksA"

Thereafter, an application dated 13.12.2019 for recall of final order dated 25.10.2019 was filed and the Revisional Authority based upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 1997 (88) R.D. 562 (Shivraji and others v. D.D.C. Allahabad and others) dismissed the application for recall vide order dated 24.05.2022 after observing that the same is not maintainable. Hence this petition for the reliefs sought.

While pressing the present petition for the reliefs sought, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the order of Consolidation Officer dated 08.03.2016 is sustainable in the eyes of law, as the Authority concerned after considering the material available before it passed this order, however, the Appellate Authority without considering the relevant aspects of the case interfered in the order and remanded the matter back and being aggrieved, a revision was filed by the petitioner, which was also dismissed that too without considering the relevant aspects of the case particularly that the order of Consolidation Officer dated 08.03.2016 was a reasoned and valid order, which was passed after due application of mind and considering the material available on record. As such, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter.

Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel while opposing the present petition says that the order of Appellate Authority dated 16.06.2017 is an order of remand and the Appellate Authority has not observed anything on merits of the case and the petition assailing the order of remand can only be entertained if the findings are of such a nature which can influence the Authority while deciding the case after remand and not otherwise. In the instant case, the Appellate Authority has not observed anything on merits, however, the observation of the Appellate Authority is to the effect that the Consolidation Officer while passing the order dated 08.03.2016 has concluded the proceedings initiated under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 in a cursory manner. Thus, in this view of the matter, the order of Appellate Authority dated 16.06.2017 is not liable to be interfered with by this Court.

Further submission is that the Revisional Authority also observed in the same tune, as such, the observations by the Authorities concerned are concurrent so far as the case of remand is concerned.

It is lastly stated by the learned State counsel that considering the entire aspects of the case, the present petition challenging the order of remand passed by the Appellate Authority and affirmed by the Revisional Authority is not liable to be entertained by this Court.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly stated that justice would suffice if the Authority concerned is directed to decide the matter afresh because the first order was passed in the year 2016 and now we are in 2023.

Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The principle in regard to interference in the order of remand is well settled. The order of remand should not be interfered in a routine manner, as it does not terminate the proceedings. The order of remand should not be interfered unless it is shown that it would cause injustice on account of findings/observations on law or fact(s), which could influence the Court/Authority concerned while deciding the case on merits.

From the orders impugned, it is apparent that the Appellate Authority as also the Revisional Authority have taken note of the relevant facts of the case and made certain observations but the same are only for the purposes of remand of the case.

Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

However, before parting, it would be apt to point out that the Consolidation Officer while passing the order afresh in the light of the order of Appellate Authority affirmed by the Revisional Authority would not be influenced by any of the observations made by these Authorities in the orders impugned and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after applying its own mind and considering the material available on record before it.

It is further provided that the Consolidation Officer concerned shall conclude the proceedings pending before it as early as possible, say within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

Order Date :- 6.2.2023

Arun/-