Allahabad High Court
Gelhai (Died) Thru. Heirs Ram ... vs The Deputy Director Of ... on 10 January, 2023
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 21
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 6 of 2023
Applicant :- Gelhai (Died) Thru. Heirs Ram Charan And Another
Opposite Party :- The Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Sultanpur And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Pandey,Jagdish Prasad Maurya
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the review-petitioners, who has instituted the instant review application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 05.12.2022 passed in WRIT-B No.5988 of 1981 (Gelahi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others).
The submission of the learned counsel for the review-petitioners is that the issue in question related to the rights of the respective parties. It has been urged that the Courts have taken a view that since a suit preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the review-petitioners under Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act had resulted in a consent decree and thus the rights of the private-respondents had crystalized.
It is submitted that what has escaped the attention is the fact that the private-respondents had instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, which came to be dismissed and an appeal was preferred which came to be abated on account of the commencement of the consolidation operations and the fact that review-petitioners remained in possession throughout and this aspect has not been noticed as such the decision requires review.
Having heard learned counsel for the review-petitioners, this Court finds that the matter has been dealt with by the Court on merits while recording a finding that both the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have found that the suit preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the review-petitioners under Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act which resulted in a consented decree was binding which needless to say means that the respondents were in possession and though a suit for eviction was filed and decided by a consent order and the possession of respondent was maintained.
In light of the aforesaid, in case if the submission of the learned counsel for the review-petitioners is tested, it would indicate that even though the proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act were initiated by the private-respondents, yet the fact remained that it did not culminate in a final order as prior thereto the consolidation operations had commenced and the proceedings had abated.
In view of the aforesaid, the entire issue was yet again to be adjudicated before the consolidation authorities and in view thereof the aforesaid contention also does not impress the Court nor does it constitute an error apparent on the face of the record to entertain the review application.
With the aforesaid, the review application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.1.2023
Rakesh/-
