Allahabad High Court
Ram Chandra And 2 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 29 March, 2023
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 786 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ram Chandra And 2 Others
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Gorakhpur And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anup Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prem Chandra,Satya Priya Mishra
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Sri Anup Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Satya Priya Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and the learned standing counsel for state-respondent.
The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.1.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as the order dated 5.4.2022 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No.476, under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act.
Brief facts of the case are that in the Basic Year of the consolidation operation, petitioners along with the contesting respondents, were recorded over plot of khata no.149, situated in village Tekuiwapatti, Tappa-Bhadsaad, Pergana-Hasanpur Magahar, Tahsil-Sahjanwa, District- Gorakhpur. Contesing respondents filed objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act, claiming 1/3 share in the disputed plots. Consolidation Officer rejected the objection vide order dated 22.1.1994. Contesting respondents challenged the order dated 22.1.1994 through appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act alongwith application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dismissed the aforementioned appeal for non-prosecution vide order dated 25.6.2001. Against the order dated 22.1.1994, passed by Consolidation Officer, recall application was filed by contesting respondent which was rejected by consolidation officer vide order dated 9.11.2012. Contesting respondents challenged the order dated 9.11.2012 in appeal which was allowed vide order dated 15.9.2017, setting aside the order dated 9.11.2012 and remanded the matter before Consolidation Officer for fresh decision on merit. Petitioners challenged the order dated 15.9.2017 in revision which was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 21.2.2019. Petitioners challenged the order dated 21.2.2019 & 15.9.2012 through Writ B No.619 of 2019 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.7.2019 setting aside the order dated 15.9.2017 and 21.2.2019 and remanded the matter before Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to pass fresh order in appeal within a period of 3 months. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 12.7.2019, appellate court decided the appeal vide order dated 15.9.2017 and remanded the matter before Consolidation Officer to decide the objection afresh. Petitioners filed an application dated 10.11.2021 before Consolidation Officer with the prayer to direct the other side to produce the copy of the sale deed. Consolidation Officer rejected the application vide order dated 5.4.2022 and revisional court has didmissed the revision vide order dated 6.1.2023. Hence, this writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer dated 11.10.2021, directing the objector to produce the copy of the sale deed, has been rejected by the Consolidation Officer arbitrarily. He further submitted that the revision filed by the other applicants has also been dismissed. It is further submitted that the sale deed in question is the basis of the claim, as such, the rejection of the application will cause irreparable injury to the petitioner. He submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to allow the application dated 11.10.2021 filed by the petitioner.
On the other hand, Sri S.P. Mishra, counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that petitioner has already filed an application for the same prayer before the Consolidation Officer which was rejected on 22.2.2021 and the case is at the evidence stage. He further submitted that petitioner is only interested to linger on the proceedings, as such, no interference is required in the matter.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
There is no dispute about the fact that the objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act is pending before the Consolidation Officer and the application dated 11.10.2021 filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed by the Consolidation Officer and the order has been maintained in revision.
Since the application dated 11.10.2021 which was filed by the petitioner, has been rejected with the finding that earlier also petitioner had filed an application for the same prayer which was rejected by the Consolidation Officer, as such, petitioner cannot be permitted to file the application again and again for the same prayer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also dismissed the revision recording the finding that the petitioner can very well obtain the copy of the alleged sale deed from the registration department and filing of the repeated application for the same prayer before the Consolidation Officer, is abuse of the process of law.
The relevant portion of the judgment of the revisional court is as under:-
???? ????????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????, ??? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ???????? ??? ?????? ????????? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??? ???????? ????, ????? ????? ????????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??????????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????? 24.02.2021 ????????? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ???? ??, ??? ???? ????????????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ???????????? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? 24.02.2021 ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????? ????????? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??, ??? ??????????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???
????
??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? 27/01/23 ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ????????? ????? ???? ???
??????- 06/01/2023 ?????
06/01/2023
?? ?????? ???????,
???????
Considering the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, no interference is required in the matter.
The writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed..
Order Date :- 29.3.2023
C.Prakash
