Allahabad High Court
Mahant Vivek Das vs State Of U.P. Thru. District ... on 17 May, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34358
Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2543 of 2023
Petitioner :- Mahant Vivek Das
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Ayodhya And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following main reliefs:-
"i) Issue an order or direction to set aside the impugned order dated 22.03.2017 passed by Consolidation officer, (Old) Gonda in case/recall application No. 472 (Suraj Das Versus Vivek Das) under section 9A(2) Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953, as contained as Annexure No. 1 to this petition, in the interest of justice.
ii) Issue an order of direction to set aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2020 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal no. 87 T. B. (Mahant Vivek Das versus Suraj Das) under section 11 (1) passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, in the interest of justice.
iii) Issue an order or direction to set aside the impugned proceeding of appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation Gonda against the order dated 18.07.2019 bearing appeal No. 174 T.B./2020 on 19.10.2020 under section 9A (2) Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953, as contained as Annexure No. 3 to this petition, in the interest of justice.
iv) Issue an order or direction to set aside the impugned proceeding of appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation Gonda against the order dated 14.08.1992 under section 12 Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, bearing appeal No. 175 T.B./2020, in the interest of justice.
v) Issue an order or direction to set aside the impugned proceeding of appeal before Settlement officer Consolidation Gonda bearing appeal No. 161T.B./2020 against the order dated 22.03.2017, in the interest of justice.
vi) Issue an order of direction to set aside the impugned proceeding of appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation Gonda against the order dated 14.08.1992 bearing appeal No. 186 T.B./2020 on 02.10.2020 under section 11(1) Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953, in the interest of justice.
vii) Issue an order or direction to set aside the entire proceeding arising out against order dated 22.04.91 passed by Consolidation officer Utraulla in case no. 1460 (Mahant Trilok Narayan das versus Mahant Govind Das) under section 9A (2) Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 whereby the name of Triloki Narayan Das has been mutated on the place of Mahant Govind das on the basis of registered will deed, and against order dated 14.08.1992 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer whereby the name of petitioner has been mentioned on the place of Mahant Triloki Narayan Das, as all proceeding against both order dated 22.04.1991 and 14.08.1992 are running without jurisdiction as the both orders has been passed during the consolidation proceeding and after the publication of section 52 of consolidation of Holding Act 1953 which has been published in year 1992 as every proceeding against order dated 22.04.1991 and 18.04.1992 is barred from section 49 of Consolidation of Holding Act 1953, in the interest of justice."
Regarding relief No. (i), which relate to challenging the order dated 22.03.2017, the petitioner has failed to explain the latches in approaching this Court. As such, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition assailing the order dated 22.03.2017 at this belated stage in the month of May, 2023.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the operation and implementation of the order dated 22.03.2017 was stayed by the same Court vide order dated 08.07.2020 and subsequently, the said order was vacated vide order dated 14.10.2020. From this date also, the petitioner has approached this Court after more than two years challenging the order dated 22.03.2017 that too without explaining the latches in this regard. For all these reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition for relief No. (i) challenging the order dated 22.03.2017.
Other reliefs sought by the petitioner i.e. relief Nos. (ii) to (vii) relate to quashing of proceedings. In regard to quashing of proceedings, the principle is settled that the Court should not quash/set-aside the proceedings at the very threshold. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jacky vs. Tiny reported in (2014) 6 SCC 508.
For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition for all the reliefs sought. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 17.5.2023
Arun/-
