Allahabad High Court
Askar Ahmad vs State Of U P And 12 Others on 28 March, 2023
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3424 of 2022
Petitioner :- Askar Ahmad
Respondent :- State Of U P And 12 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava Iii
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Mr. Arvind Srivastava III, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for contesting respondent no.4.
The instant petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 18.11.2022 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by which the amendment application filed by the petitioner in the chak Revision No.33 / 118 of 2015-16 (New no.1347/ 2022) (Aksar Ahmad Vs. Vijay Pal Singh and Other) has been rejected.
Brief facts of the case are that Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 6.7.2013 distributed the petitioner's chak, hence revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by petitioner, which was registered as Revision No.33/118 of 2015-16. The revisional Court vide order dated 5.8.2016 allowed the petitioner's Revision No.33/118 of 2015-16, hence Writ- B No.55831 of 2016 and Writ-B No.4314 of 2017 were filed before this Court which were allowed vide judgment dated 18.1.2020 and matter was remanded back to the revisional Court to decide the Revision No.33/118 of 2015-16 afresh on merit. After remand order of this Court dated 18.1.2020, petitioner filed an amendment application dated 30.6.2021, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 18.11.2022, hence this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned application filed by the petitioner in his chak revision has been rejected by the revisional Court arbitrarily. He further submitted that by way of the amendment application petitioner wants to add certain grounds in his revision which will not prejudice the claim of respondents rather the same will be helpful for effective decision of the revision but the same has been arbitrarily rejected by the revisional Court. He next submitted that due to subsequent development, the necessity arose for filing the amendment application, as such, the same was to be allowed by the revisional Court, but the impugned order has been passed in arbitrary manner as such, the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.
On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.4 submitted that earlier the petitioner has approached this Court through Writ- B No.4314 of 2017 along with Writ-B No.55831 of 2016 against the order of the revisional Court in respect to allotment of chak proceeding and this Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner and remanded the matter back before the revisional court to decide the revision on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties. He further submitted that in pursuance of the order of this Court, the proceeding was started before the revisional Court but in order to linger on the matter the amendment application has been filed by the petitioner which was rightly rejected by the impugned order.
I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
There is no dispute about the fact that the chak revision filed by the petitioner under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act is pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no.2. There is also no dispute about the fact that the amendment application filed by the petitioner to amend the grounds of revision has been rejected by the impugned order.
This Court vide order dated 18.1.2020 has allowed the earlier Writ- B No.4314 of 2017 and Writ-B No.55831 of 2016 filed against the revisional order dated 5.8.2016 and remanded the matter to the revisional Court to decide the matter afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the affected parties accordingly, revisional Court started the proceeding of revision in compliance of the order of this Court dated 18.1.2020 which cannot be interfered with again unless final order is passed by revisional Court.
Since the chak revision is pending for consideration in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 18.1.2020, as such, no interference is required in the matter. The writ petition has no merit and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
However, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rampur is directed to decide the aforementioned chak revision in compliance of earlier order of this court dated 18.1.2020 expeditiously preferably within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 28.3.2023
Rameez
