Teeka Ram vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7074 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Teeka Ram vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, ... on 21 May, 2025

Author: Saurabh Lavania

Bench: Saurabh Lavania

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


				                Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30205
 
Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 457 of 2025
 
Petitioner :- Teeka Ram
 
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Hardoi And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Shankar Mishra,Ashish Kumar Verma,Shivanshi Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
 

1. Heard Shri Shiv Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State/opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 and perused the record.

2. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private opposite parties is hereby dispensed with.

3. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief:-

" i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 05.11.2004 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Hardoi (Opposite party No. 2) in appeal No.103/663 (Teeka Ram vs Makrand and others) to the extent that the opposite party No. 2 has given a Chak on Gata No. 1210 of area 0.109 hectare to the petitioner although he demanded his Chak on his original and biggest no. 1903/1 situated on road side at Village Malhera, Pargana and Tehsil - Sandila, District - Hardoi and also has commercial value contained here as Annexure No. - 1 to this writ petition in the interest of justice.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 17.12.2016 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Hardoi in Revision No. - 103 (Teeka Ram vs Makrantd and Others) by which the opposite party No. 1 has rejected the revision preferred by petitioner against the order dated 05.11.2004 passed by in Appeal No. 103/663 (Teeka Ram vs Nanhu and others) under section 21 of UP consolidation of holding act contained here as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition in the interest of justice.

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Hardoi in recall application no. 223 under section 48 (i) of UP consolidation of holding act preferred in Revision No. 103 (Teeka Ram vs Makrand and others) by which the opposite party No. 1 has rejected the recall application of the petitioner of the order dated 17.12.2016 contained here as Annexure No.-3 to this writ petition in the interest of justice.

iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to give the Chak of price rupees 8.53 on the Gata No. 1903 which is the petitioner's original and biggest no. but the opposite party no. 2 has denied to offer him in the interest of justice."

4. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the purposes of final disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage are as under :-

(i) The petitioner being dissatisfied with the order dated 30.10.1999, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Hardoi (in short "C.O.") filed an appeal bearing Appeal No.103/663 (Tika Ram Vs. Nanhu and others) under Section 21 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953").

(ii) Two appeals i.e. Appeal No.104/664 (Ramjeevan Vs. Nanhu and others) and Appeal No.105/665 (Chhanga Vs. Nanhu and others) were also filed under Section 21 (2) of the Act of 1953 challenging the order dated 30.10.1999 passed by the C.O., Hardoi.

(iii) All the aforesaid three appeals were decided by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Hardoi (in short "A.S.O.C.") vide order dated 05.11.2004. The relevant portion of the order dated 05.11.2004 reads as under :-

"eSaus i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdZ dks lquk rFkk xzke ds pd Hkwfp= vfHkys[kksa dk voyksdu fd;kA

i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd vihydrkZ Naxk o Vhdkjke o jkethou dh ekax mfpr izrhr gksrh gSA D;ksafd vihydrkZx.kksa dk izLrkfor pd xkVk la[;k&1252 ij cuk& mM+ku pd 8-99 fe0 vkfn rFkk c0v0p0 okn la[;k&906@1945 29-01-04 ds vuqikyu esa foHkktu nq#Lr gksus ds dkj.k okn dVkSrh 8-52 vkfn dk fn;k x;k gSA ewY;kadu lekIr djds] xkVk la[;k&1210 fe0] 1295 fe0] vkfn 17-51 ewY;kadu dk pd izfo"V fd;k tkrk gSA ftlls pd la[;k&238] 325] 780] 346] 376] cpr] pdekxZ izHkkfor gksrs gSaA vr% vihy Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA rFkk ;gh vkns'k vihy la[;k&103@663 o 104@664 ij Hkh ykxw gksxkA

vkns'k

mijksDrkuqlkj] rhuksa vihysa Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA pd la[;k&238] 325] 780] 346] 376] cpr] pdekxZ dks izHkkfor dj la'kks/ku rkfydk cuk;h x;h ftl ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA tks vkns'k dk vax jgsxhA izHkkfor pdokjksa dks tksr pdcUnh vk0 i= 23 Hkkx 1 dk m)j.k forfjr gksA i=koyh okn veynjken nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA

fnukad& 05-11-2004 g0 viBuh;

¼yky cgknqj½

l0 cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh

gjnksbZ"

(iv) From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 05.11.2004.

(v) After the aforesaid order dated 05.11.2004 passed by the A.S.O.C., Hardoi the petitioner preferred Revision No.103 (Tika Ram Vs. Makrand and others).

(vi) The revision No.103 filed by the petitioner and another revision bearing Revision No.104 (Ramjeevan Vs. Makrand and others) were decided vide order dated 17.12.2016.

(vii) It would be apt to indicate that both the revisions were filed along with the application seeking condonation of delay.

(viii) The application for condonation of delay dated 02.03.2016 filed along with the memo of revision by the petitioner is extracted herein under :-

"izkFkZuki= va0 /kkjk 5 Hkk0ifj0vf/k0

Jheku th]

lfou; fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ lh/kk lk/kk xzkeh.k O;fDRk gS izkFkhZ dks pdcUnh dkuwu dk dksbZ Kku ugha gSA izkFkhZ dks fnukad 18-1-16 dks {ks=h; ys[kiky ds ikl vius fgLls nq#Lrh ds jdcs ds ckor tkudkjh djus x;k rc ys[kiky ls mls tkudkjh gq;h fd mldks fgLlk nq#Lr gksus ds vuqikyu esa pd ugha cuk;k x;k gS rFkk izkFkhZ vkt fnukad dks viuh pd fuxjkuh ;ksftr dj jgk gSA izkFkhZ us pd fuxjkuh ;ksftr djus esa tkucw>dj dksbZ nsjh ugha dh gS tks Hkh nsjh gq;h gS og vKkurk o vufHkKrko'k gq;h gSA og U;k;kFkZ dkfcy ekQh gSA

vr% Jheku th ls izkFkZuk gS fd izkFkhZ dh fuxjkuh dks vUnj fe;kn ekudj ;fn fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ nsjh ikbZ tkos ds mls /kkjk 5 fe;kn vf/kfu;e dk ykHk nsdj fuxjkuh dk fuLrkj.k xq.k o nks"k ds vk/kkj ij djus dh d`ik djsaA

fnukad&2@3@016 izkFkhZ

jkethou && && & mijksDr

}kjk

vf/koDrk

gLrk{kj viBuh;

jkts'k dqekj ;kno"

(ix) The application dated 02.03.2016 seeking condonation of delay referred in preceding paragraph indicates that for the purposes of condoning the delay the petitioner has shown the date of knowledge of order dated 05.11.2004 as 18.01.2016, which to the view of this Court is incorrect for the reason that the order dated 05.11.2004 was passed by the A.S.O.C. after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the said appeal was allowed.

5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the proper explanation was not given by the petitioner for the purposes of condonging the delay of 11 years, 03 months and 27 days.

6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the dismissal of the revision of the petitioner bearing Revision No.103 on the ground that the delay has not been properly explained is just and proper. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order dated 17.12.2016.

7. In so far as the order dated 07.12.2024 is concerned, the same is also not liable to be interfered with for the reason that in view of the full bench decision of this Court in the case of Anarkali Vs. DDC, 1997 (15) LCD 921 (FB), the authorities under the Act of 1953 are not empowered to review their order/judgment.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 21.5.2025

ML/-