Mangru vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation , ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8837 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mangru vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation , ... on 9 April, 2025

Author: Jaspreet Singh

Bench: Jaspreet Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19874
 
Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 122 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Mangru
 
Opposite Party :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation , Faizabad And 33 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ghulam Mohammad Kamil
 
Alongwith
 
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 16 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Jayram And 19 Others
 
Opposite Party :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Faizabad And Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Abdul Shahid,Kamlesh Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
 

1. The record indicates that this Court by means of judgment dated 24.11.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.1846 (Cons.) of 1982 (Somai Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation and others) had allowed the writ petition.

2. Later, the review petitioner Mangru preferred a review petition before this Court which came to be dismissed by means of order dated 07.08.2023. The review petitioner Mangru being aggrieved with the order dated 07.08.2023 filed A Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court which was later numbered as Civil Appeal No.12113 of 2024 wherein the Apex Court on 21.10.2024 allowed the appeal and the judgment passed in review application dated 07.08.2023 was set aside and the review application was directed to be decided on merits. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the review application was restored and was placed before this Court for being considered on merits.

3. It will also be relevant to mention that while the review application of Mangru came to be restored in light of the orders passed by the Apex Court dated 21.10.2024. By then, Jayram and 18 others also filed another review application No.16 of 2025 against the judgment dated 24.11.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.1846 (Cons.) of 1982. This Review petition filed by Jayram, and others was filed through Shri Abdul Shahid Advocate. Since this Court found that both the review application i.e. on filed by Mangru and other by Jayram and 18 others were arising out of same judgment dated 24.11.2021 hence both the review petitions were connected together to be decided on merits.

4. First this Court will deal with C.M.R.A.d. No.16 of 2025 Jayram & 19 others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad & others.

5. It will be relevant to point out that this Court on 04.04.2025 had passed the following orders which reads as under:-

"This review petition has been filed on behalf of the review-petitioners represented by Sri Abdul Shahid, learned counsel for the review-petitioners seeking review of the judgement dated 24.11.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 1846 (Cons) of 1982. The review petition is also accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay.

At the time of call of case, no one has put in appearance on behalf of review-petitioners despite the name of Sri Abdul Shahid printed in the cause list. Secondly, the matters have been expedited by the Apex Court and it is so clearly indicated in the additional cause list as well, yet neither counsel for the review petitioners is present nor any out of station/illness/engagement slip has been sent on his behalf.

The record further indicates that in respect of the same judgement, another party, namely Mangroo had preferred a Review Application Defective No. 122 of 2023, which was dismissed and it was further escalated before the Apex Court and in the said review petition, the counsel for the review-petitioner Sri G.M. Kamil has also filed the affidavit as indicated from the order sheets. Today Sri G.M. Kamil has sent his illness slip.

Since the matters are expedited by the Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to adjourn the matter for either a long date.

Accordingly, list this matter under the same heading on 8.4.2025.

The matter shall go on day to day basis, in case, the counsel for the review-petitioners invoked the review, have any difficulties, they shall make alternative arrangements."

6. The matter came to be listed before the Court on 08.04.2025. However, on the said date, the Court passed the following order which reads as under:-

"1. This Court on 4.4.2025, has passed the following order in C.M.Review Application Defective No.16 of 2025 :-

"This review petition has been filed on behalf of the review-petitioners represented by Sri Abdul Shahid, learned counsel for the review-petitioners seeking review of the judgement dated 24.11.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 1846 (Cons) of 1982. The review petition is also accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay.

At the time of call of case, no one has put in appearance on behalf of review-petitioners despite the name of Sri Abdul Shahid printed in the cause list. Secondly, the matters have been expedited by the Apex Court and it is so clearly indicated in the additional cause list as well, yet neither counsel for the review petitioners is present nor any out of station/illness/engagement slip has been sent on his behalf.

The record further indicates that in respect of the same judgement, another party, namely Mangroo had preferred a Review Application Defective No. 122 of 2023, which was dismissed and it was further escalated before the Apex Court and in the said review petition, the counsel for the review-petitioner Sri G.M. Kamil has also filed the affidavit as indicated from the order sheets. Today Sri G.M. Kamil has sent his illness slip.

Since the matters are expedited by the Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to adjourn the matter for either a long date.

Accordingly, list this matter under the same heading on 8.4.2025.

The matter shall go on day to day basis, in case, the counsel for the review-petitioners invoked the review, have any difficulties, they shall make alternative arrangements."

2. Today, Shri G.M. Kamil learned counsel for the review petitioner in C.M.Review Application Defective No.122 of 2023 is present, however Shri Abdul Shahid learned counsel for the review petitioner in connected C.M.Review Application No.16 of 2025 has sent illness slip.

3. In view of the order by this Court dated 4.4.2025 passed in C.M.Review Application Defective No.16 of 2025, the Court has heard Shri G.M.Kamil for the review petitioner of C.M.Review Application Defective No.122 of 2023.

4. Since learned counsel for the other review petitioner Shri Abdul Shahid has sent an illness slip and despite providing in the erstwhile order that no further adjournment would be granted and the counsel is required to make alternative arrangement in case if he is unable to assist the court. Despite the same, a day's time is granted.

List this case alongwith connected case, tomorrow i.e. 9.4.2025, in the interest of justice.

5. However this matter shall not be adjourned tomorrow and whether learned counsel for the review petitioner Shri Abdul Shahid is present or not, under the same Heading as has been listed today."

7. Thereafter the matter was listed today but again neither Shri Mohd. Shahid appeared before the Court nor sent any out of station slip, illness slip or engagement slip. In the aforesaid circumstances, there was none to press the review application on behalf of Jai Ram and 18 others and thus the said Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No.16 of 2025 stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No.122 of 2023

8. The Court has heard Shri G. M. Kamil, the learned counsel for the review petitioner who submitted that the order passed by the writ court was without affording any opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that notice was not served on Mangru rather there were three stages when the notice ought to have been issued to Mangru: (i) when the writ petition was admitted at the initial stage, the notice ought to have been sent to the respondent Mangru. However, the same was not served; (ii) Thereafter the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 27.11.2013 and even at the time of restoring the said writ petition, notice was not issued even though the writ was restored on 02.12.2014; (iii) Once when the matter was being heard after restoration even then an opportunity ought to have been granted by issuing notice but the same was not done, hence the entire proceedings was decided behind the back of the review petitioner, hence the order passed by the writ court deserves to be reviewed, as it deprives the review petitioner on an opportunity of hearing.

9. It is also urged by Shri Kamil that Mangru was son of Komal and it was disputed that the original petitioner, namely, Somai was son of Panchu that is to say that Somai could not establish that he was the son of Panchu.

10. It is thus urged that the writ court while allowing the writ petition went on to accept that Somai was son of panchu. However, there was certain documents to indicate that Mangru son of Komal was granted right in the property in question and to support the same, he has filed a copy of Kisan Bahi and Khatauni relating to Fasli Year 1420-1425 alongwith the affidavit in support of the application for interim relief filed with the review application.

11. It is urged that it is review petitioner who was in possession and even in the Parivar Register the name of Somai son of Panchu never came to be recorded and thus in the aforesaid circumstances the decision rendered by the writ court treating Somai to be the son of Panchu was erroneous and as such deserves to be set aside after allowing the review application.

12. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record.

13. At the outset, it may be noticed that Komal could not dispute the fact that in a contemporaneous proceedings bearing writ petition No.1835 of 75 which was contested by Mangru and in the said proceedings it was held that Somai was son of Panchu and once the said order had been passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the same was never assailed by Mangru before any superior court, the said finding attained finality and could not be ignored.

14. Shri Kamil could not dispute that in Writ Petition No.1835 of 1975 which came to be decided on 09.02.1976, it was held that Somai was the son of Panchu.

15. Learned counsel for the review petitioner though assailed the issue of the property not being ancestral but also could not establish as to how the property be treated as self acquired and not be treated as ancestral. This aspect has already been considered by this Court in the judgment dated 24.11.2021. The issues that have been raised by Shri Kamil are all issues of fact which has been dealt with the by the Court while passing the order dated 24.11.2021. There is nothing on record to substantiate that any right of the present review petitioner has been materially affected especially once it is the admitted position that in a contemporaneous proceedings bearing writ petition No.1835 of 75 Somai was held to be the son of Panchu and this was in the notice of Mangru who never challenged it any further.

16. From the perusal of the record, it would indicate that the notices were issued to the review petitioner and the office report clearly indicates the same. As per office report dated 15.09.2021 notice upon the respondent in the writ petition, including Mangru was sufficient. In light of the above, it cannot be said that notices were not served.

17. For the said reason, this Court does not find that there is any error apparent on the face of the record which may persuade this Court to entertain the aforesaid review especially on the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the review petitioner.

18. There is an additional ground to dismiss the review; inasmuch as the Apex Court in its order dated 21.10.2024 while restoring the review application to be heard on merits had passed the following order which reads as under:-

"Leave granted.

We are not inclined to interfere with the main judgment.

However, the Review Application has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, after rejecting the case projected by the appellant that he has not been served with a notice.

In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the judgment passed in Review Application and the Review Application is restored on the file of the High Court, to be decided on merits.

The appeal stands allowed, accordingly."

19. From the perusal of the aforesaid it would indicate that the Apex Court had clearly stated that it had declined to interfere with the main judgment, hence it attained approval on merits.

20. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court even otherwise cannot disturb its judgment which has been accepted by the Apex Court. Thus for all the reasons this review petition at the behest of Mangru Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No.122 of 2023 also stands dismissed. Costs are made easy.

Order Date :- 9.4.2025

ank