Allahabad High Court
Jagannath And 5 Ors vs Deputy Dir. Of Consolidation Faizabad ... on 7 May, 2024
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35307
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 553 of 2007
Petitioner :- Jagannath And 5 Ors
Respondent :- Deputy Dir. Of Consolidation Faizabad And 4 Os.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kapil Muni Dubey,K.M.Dubey,Kapil Muni Dubey,Mohammad Aslam Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Harish Chandra,Harshita Mishra,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi,Sharad Pathak,Umesh Chandra Pandey,Vijai Bahadur Verma
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
(Review Petition/Application No. 128268/2019)
1. Present review petition has been preferred for review of the judgment and order dated 22.08.2019.
2. Learned counsel for the review applicant has submitted that against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2019 which is under review, S.L.P. was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment/order dated 21.10.2019 has disposed of the S.L.P. by permitting the petitioners to approach the High Court by way of review petition, if so advised. If the review petition is decided against the petitioners, it will be open to the petitioners to challenge the order passed in the review petition as well as the impugned judgment by way of S.L.P.
3. It is further submitted that in the judgment which is under review, this Court has not considered the judgment and order dated 13.02.1968 passed in Second Appeal No. 271 under Section 11(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 preferred by Jagannath and Others against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad dated 31.01.1967, who had purchased the said land in dispute from Raghuraj by a registered sale deed.
4. It is further submitted that the above mentioned second appeal was decided in favour of the petitioners by judgment and order dated 13.02.1968 and once the same has been decided in favour of the petitioners and the same was not challenged till date by any of the respondents, it has attained finality.
5. It is further submitted that the said judgment/order dated 13.02.1968 is subsequent to the judgments/orders passed in favour of the respondents on the basis of which the judgment dated 22.08.2019, which is under review was passed in favour of the respondents by dismissing the writ petition preferred by the petitioners, ignoring completely the subsequent order dated 13.02.1968 which had to govern or determinative order for the adjudication of the writ petition.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the writ petition, counter affidavit was filed by the respondent no. 4 in which the copy of Goshwara was annexed as annexure no. C.A.-8 whereby it was replied that no such order dated 13.02.1968 was passed and on the basis of which their case is that it is a forged and fabricated order. The petitioners had not filed the certified copy of that order rather filed the typed copy only.
7. In reply to the same, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order dated 13.02.1968 was passed in second appeal wherein the order dated 31.01.1967 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer was under challenge and placed reliance upon the Goshwara.
8. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the order dated 13.02.1968 was referred in the judgment under review but there was no finding that the said order was forged or fabricated and there was no objection to this effect by the other side.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the position which emerges out in the present case is that whether the order dated 13.02.1968 which has also been mentioned in the judgment under review was a forged and fabricated order or not as the respondents since the very beginning from the filing of the writ petition had filed the Goshwara as mentioned above in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 which was never disputed by petitioners except that the petitioners have come with a case by enclosing the Goshwara as Annexure No. S.A.-1 in which there is a reference of order dated 31.01.1967 which has neither been disputed nor alleged by the respondents as a forged document but there was no reference of order dated 13.02.1968. Despite the objections in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents separately with a specific plea with regard to the order dated 13.02.1968, the petitioners had an opportunity at the time of pendency of writ petition to file the certified copy of the order which they had never filed. Only on the basis of typed copy, they were claiming their rights and after perusal of Goshwara, which was not denied by the petitioners, it affirms the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that copy of the typed order dated 13.02.1968 enclosed as annexure no. 5 to the writ petition is not a genuine document.
10. It is though in the judgment under review at one place there is a mention about the judgment and order dated 13.02.1968 but its contents or that it was forged typed copy as was the case of the respondents, no finding was recorded by this Court nor there was any discussion about order dated 13.02.1968. The case of the respondents throughout has been that it was a forged typed copy supposed to be a judgment in second appeal. Since no further discussion or mention was made in respect of order dated 13.02.1968, it would be only appropriate to deal with the respective stand of the parties about the said order dated 13.02.1968. It is already noted that it is only a typed copy and no certified copy was ever filed by the petitioner despite objection to the effect. The Goshwara was annexed as annexure no. C.A.-8 filed by the respondent no. 4 makes it clear that their exist no such order. It only leads to the conclusion that typed order dated 13.02.1968 is only fictitious or forged order. It will thus make no difference on the merits of the case or result of the writ petition.
11. The Goshwara which has been filed by the petitioner as S.A.-1 indicates that the records of Serial No. 1781 to 1813 have been weeded out but it does not mention the number of the Appeal and date of the judgment/order dated 13.02.1968, thus the second appeal of the petitioner cannot be connected with Serial No. 1781 to 1813. Annexure S.A.-1 lacks the material particulars. In this view of the matter, it cannot be relied upon whereas, full particulars and details are mentioned in the Goshwara i.e. Annexure no. C.A.-8 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 4, which is reliable and appears to be correct.
11. In view of the discussion held above, the review petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.5.2024
Nitesh
