Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Usman vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And ... on 27 May, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40344
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 389 of 1989
Petitioner :- Mohammad Usman
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- M.R. Misra,Anil Kumar Mishra,Prem Chandra Chauhan,Shiv P. Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ausaf Ahmad Khan
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Shri Prem Chandra Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 as well as Shri Ausaf Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and perused the material available on record.
2. By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of impugned of order dated 14.12.1988 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur wherein he has allowed the application for condonation of delay filed by private respondents.
3. In the present case, the dispute pertains to Plot No. 972 and 975 of Village Niyawan, Tehsil Musafirkhan, district Sultanpur, which was recorded in the name of Abdul Rahman, father of the petitioner since before the date of vesting as his grove. It is submitted that after the abolition of Zamindari, he became its Bhumidhar and has been in possession of the said grove ever since. It is stated that notification under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was published on 5.9.1980 and objections were filed on 09.09.1982 by one Abdul Rahman and the said objections were filed belatedly and beyond the period of limitation prescribed. The said objections were rejected by means of order dated 14.11.1983 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The opposite parties being aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer had filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, which was numbered as Revision No. 748/1123, which has been allowed by means of impugned order dated 14.12.1988, which has been assailed in the present petition.
4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while allowing this application has taken into consideration the fact that though there has been some delay in filing the objection but the delay was sought to be explained by the opposite parties stating that he was living outside the said village and it is only when he came to the village and he came to know about the proceedings of notification of under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and thereafter had moved the said application. He also considered the case on merits where it was submitted by the counsel for the respondents that on 1/3 of the said land, the opposite parties has been declared to be the owner by the judgment of this High Court dated 20.07.1956 and they are in continuous possession of the said property and inadvertently the name had not been recorded in the revenue records. therefore they had filed their objections.
5. On behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted that the consolidation proceedings were concluded on the previous occasion where name of the opposite parties was never entered into the records nor any objections were filed in the previous proceedings and consequently he cannot file any objections in the present proceedings. Considering the aforesaid contentions, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was of the view that in any view of the matter even after the consolidation proceedings are over, the parties can approach the civil court to decide the contentious issue of title between them but he found that the delay has been adequately explained and consequently, condoned the delay against which the present writ petition has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was delay of merely two years in filing the said objections wherein the prescribed period is only 30 days and objections were filed much beyond the prescribed time and therefore ought to be rejected.
7. Learned counsel for the private respondents on the other hand submitted that the application for the condonation of delay has to be dealt with liberally and not rejected on mere technicalities as it affects the adjudication of valuable rights of the parties and in any case, the opposite parties has adequately explained the delay, hence, has sought dismissal of the writ petition..
8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
9. It is noticed that publication of notice under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act had been issued on 15.09.1980 and the objections of the same were filed by the private respondents on 09.09.1982 after delay of two years. With regard to the delay, the private respondents has stated that he was living outside the said village and only after return he came to know about the proceedings of notification under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and immediately filed his objections. The revisional court had duly considered the aspect and condoned the delay. The petitioner on the other hand has not objected the reasons stated by the opposite parties in his application for condonation of delay and once the revisional court was satisfied with regard to the explanation offered for the delay in filing the objections be proceeded to condone the delay. This Court after examining the same also find that the delay was adequately explained, which has been duly considered by the revisional court and the same has been condoned. The discretion has been correctly exercised by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
10. There is no ground made out for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
11. Considering the fact that the matter is pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for a considerable long time, he is directed to conclude the proceeding expeditiously say within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The parties assure this Court that they will cooperate in the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. They are further directed not to take any unnecessary adjournment.
12. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 27.5.2024
Virendra
