Allahabad High Court
Bhullan Chauhan vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 12 ... on 1 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:77449
Judgment Reserved on 29.4.2024
Delivered on 1.5.2024
Court No. - 65
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 116 of 2024
Applicant :- Bhullan Chauhan
Opposite Party :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 12 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Basant Kumar Chauhan,Surendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.,Vivek Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application Nil of 2024.
Cause shown is sufficient.
Delay in filing the review application is condoned.
Delay condonation application is allowed.
Order on Review Petition.
1. Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Singh and Sri Basant Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for respondents.
2. A judgment dated 5.1.2024 passed in Civil Misc. Writ (B) No.4263 of 2018 is under review.
3. Judgment under review is assigned by reasons and for reference relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:
"13. As referred above, after remand on request of petitioner, the Revisional Authority has directed lower Authority concerned to conduct a fresh spot inspection. Inspection was conducted in presence of parties and report dated 05.09.2017 was submitted which is a part of record. A typed copy of report is extracted below-:
"राम सूरत आदि ग्राम- सौना
बनाम प० व त०-सैदपुर
अलियार आदि जिला- गाजीपुर
धारा- 48
सहायक चकबन्दी अधिकारी
सैदपुर।
----------------------
महोदय,
ग्राम सौना परगना व तहसील सैदपुर जिला गाजीपुर के रामसूरत आदि बनाम अलियार आदि धारा-48 न्यायालय उपसंचालक चकबन्दी गाजीपुर न्यायालय में विचाराधीन पत्रावली में अलियारपुत्र स्व० एकादशी द्वारा दिनांक 14-10-016 को आपत्ति प्रस्तुत करके माँग किया है कि मौका का निरीक्षण कराकर स्पष्ट आख्या मंगाया जावे। प्रार्थना पत्र के आलोक में श्रीमान जी द्वारा आख्या प्रस्तुत करने हेतु निदेर्शित किया गया है। आपत्ति प्रार्थना पत्र के क्रम में पुनः छाया प्रति आख्या हेतु प्राप्त है। जो साथ में संलग्न है।
आपत्ति प्रार्थना पत्र के आलोक मे विवादित स्थल का निरीक्षण किया गया, जिसे नजरी नक्शा के माध्यम से स्थल की वस्तु स्थिति को दर्शाया गया है। जो निम्नवत् है।
उत्तर
पश्चिम पूरब
दक्षिण
गाटा सं०1516
क' पक्का मकान शिवपूजन पुत्र अलियार
।।
'घ
मकान कच्चा व पक्का रामसूरत स्वामीनाथ बैजनाथ शिवमूरत बनाम विपत का आबादी पुरानी मे है।
गाटा सं० 1517 -----"ख
गाटा संख्या-
च'
कच्चा मकान गिरा हुआ रामपलट पुत्र अलियार
लैटीन स्थान स्वामी नाथ पुत्र विद्यामूरत आदि
स्थलज पर
चार हजार ईट रखा हुआ है।
'ग'
पक्का मकान भुल्लन पुत्र अलियार
हैण्ड पाइप शिवमूरत आदि
स्थल पर पुरानी आबादी में मकान निर्मित है जिसे क,ख,ग,व,घ, को लाल स्याही से प्रदर्शित किया गया है।
1- गाटा सं० 1518 में मौके परचरी, मक्का, धान, फसल शिवमूरत आदि पुत्रगण विपत का है। तथा गाटा सं० 1518 के उत्तरी व पश्चिमी मेड के किनारे पेड़ बैर 2 यूकेलिप्टस 1, बबूल व नीम के छोटे-2 पेड़ है। गाटा सं० 1518 के पश्चिमी मेड के किनारे जमीन पर कच्चा गाटा नं० जोड़ा हुआ बताया गया।
2- 'घ' अच्छर से प्रदर्शित स्थान पर मकान कच्चा व पक्का रामसूरत, स्वामीनाथ, बैजनाथ, शिवमूरत पुत्रगण विपत का पुरानी आबादी में कायम है। मकान के सामने पश्चिम में नाद, चरनी, लैटीन हैण्ड पाईप आदि स्थित है।
3- 'घ' अच्छर से प्रदर्शित स्थान पक्का मकान शिवपूजन पुत्र अलियार का पुरानी आबादी मे कायम है।
4- 'ख' व 'ख 1' कच्चा मकान गिरा हुआ रामपलट का पुरानी आबादी मे का पुरानी आबादी में व ख 1' गाटा सं० 1517 मे ईट की दीवाल पर सीमेन्ट का चद्दर रखा हुआ रामपलट पुत्र अलियार का है।
5- 'ग' 'ग1' पक्का मकान भूल्लन पुत्र अलियार का ग अच्छर से प्रदर्शित है। 'ग1' ग' अच्छर के पूरब पक्की दिवाल पर सीमेन्ट का चद्दर रखा है। जो पुरानी आबादी मे कायम है।
6- गाटा सं० 1517 स्थल पर सहन आबादी के रूप में शिवपूजन रामपलट, भुल्लन पुत्रगण अलियार का है।
अतः स्थलीय आख्या आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु सेवा में प्रेषित है।
उप संचालक चकबन्दी ह० अस्पष्ट
गाजीपुर। 05-09-2017
महोदय,
आख्या च० कर्ता अभिलेखीय व स्थलीय विधि संगत कार्यवाही हेतु अग्रेषित।
ह० अस्पष्ट
06-09-17"
14. Objections of petitioner to the report were considered by the Revisional Authority and were rejected also. There is no material on record from the side of petitioner that Inspection Report was wrong. It is well settled that Inspection Report of Authority wherein inspection was conducted in the presence of parties could not be ignored. The objections of petitioner to said report were not only vague but also were not supported by any material.
15. The Revisional Authority has made objection that in inspection report dated 05.09.2017, land between home of Rampalat S/o Aliyar and house of Ramsurat has been wrongly shown as vacant but inspection report which was prepared in presence of parties could not be disputed later on without any relevant evidence. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and a supplementary affidavit annexing photographs of spot which is not being seriously disputed by learned counsel for petitioner. There is no ground that spot inspection was wrong. Therefore, impugned order which has been passed on basis of spot inspection could not be interfered.
16. In view of above, since order impugned is passed on the basis of Inspection Report which could not be disputed as no relevant document was produced on record. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.
17. Writ petition is dismissed."
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of review applicant (writ petitioner) has referred paragraphs nos.4 and 5 of this review application, which are mentioned hereinafter:
" IV. Because, the this Hon'ble Court failed to consider the facts that materials on the record and without considering and ignorance of fact and evidences by Deputy Director of Consolidation Ghazipur, impugned order dated 07.06.2018 which was without finding of objection of father of applicant/petitioner dated 04.10.2017.
V. Because, it is very clear from the perusal of finding of this Hon'ble Court in the judgment of Writ Petition no. 46034 of 1993 ( Ram Karana Shukla versus D.D.C. Fatherhpur) in para no 5 and 6 that " Deputy Director of Consolidation can not act as the Consolidation Officer."
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has supported judgment under review that there is no ground to review.
6. As referred above, in first round of litigation before Deputy Director of Consolidation, an order was passed on basis of an inspection report. Said order was challenged at instance of review applicant before this Court and writ petition was allowed and matter was remanded back that objections of writ petitioner/review applicant be considered, therefore, a question that Deputy Director of Consolidation has power to consider an inspection report was already been considered.
7. Deputy Director of Consolidation on remand, has considered rival submissions on a fresh inspection report and thereafter a fresh order was passed which was challenged by the petitioner/review applicant before this Court by way of filing a writ petition.
8. As referred above, this Court has considered as to whether fresh inspection report was correct and objections of the petitioner/review applicant were considered or not. As referred above, this Court has come to a conclusion that Revisional Authority has considered the inspection report and objections of the petitioner were found unsustainable, therefore order was passed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has wide powers under relevant provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
9. Law in regard to 'Review' has been recently reiterated by Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer and Anr, (2024) 2 SCC 362 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:
"16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: -
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
(iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected."
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."
10. The grounds raised in present review petition does not fall within ambit of a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record and this Court cannot permit applicant to reagitate or reargue the question, which have already been addressed and decided and a review petition cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.
11. Review application is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 1.5.2024
SB
