Back
2013 Supreme(All) 2008
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Anand Narayan and Others -Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consoli#31;Dation, Gorakhpur and Others -Respondent
C.M.W.P. No. 41017 of 2013
Decided On : 19-08-2013
Counsel for the Petitioners: Yogesh Agarwal.
Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., A.P. Tewari , S.S. Tripathi.
The applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings before the consolidation authorities and the determination of abatement in the context of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Headnote:
Abatement - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act - 1953 - Section 9-A, Order 22 Rule 4(3) C.P.C. - Article 120, 121 of the Limitation Act, 1963
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved land recorded in khata 39 of village Madho Nagar, related to sirdari rights and a recall application filed by respondent-3. The petitioners sought to prohibit the Consolidation Officer from proceeding with the recall application and quash the order dated 10.04.2013.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proceedings before the consolidation authorities are not governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and thus, the recall application had not abated. The writ petition was dismissed.
Issues: Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure to consolidation authorities, abatement of recall application, and substitution of heirs of deceased parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure do not automatically apply to proceedings before the consolidation authorities, and the recall application had not abated. The substitution of heirs in a related writ petition was deemed sufficient for the benefits of the objection and recall application.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no illegality in the order of the Consolidation Officer, and the recall application had not abated.
1. Heard Sri Yogesh Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.P. Tewari, counsel for the respondents.
2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of Consolidation Officer (respondent-2) dated 10.04.2013 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for issue of writ of prohibition, prohibiting the Consolidation Officer (respondent-2) from proceeding with Case No. 2212 Ramdev and others Vs. Surendra Nath Tripathi, pending before him.
3. The dispute relates to the land recorded in khata 39 (consisting plots 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1856, 1847, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1865, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1764 and 1794) of village Madho Nagar, tappa Banki, pargana Haveli, district Gorakhpur (now Mahrajganj). In basic consolidation year, the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Surendra Nath Tripathi (respondent-3). Ramdev son of Chhedi and Smt. Shivpatti Devi wife of Ram Kishun (now represented by the petitioners) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 2212) under Section 9-A of the Act, claiming their sirdari rights over the land in dispute, on basis their possession for more than statutory period of limitation. It is alleged that a written compromise dated 04.02.1992 signed by all the parties was filed before the Consolidation Officer, who on the basis of the compromise, by order dated 04.02.1992, allowed the objection, giving 1/2 share to the petitioners in disputed land.
4. Surendra Nath Tripathi (respondent-3) filed an application on 15.02.1992 before the Consolidation Officer (respondent-2) for recall of the orders dated 05.01.1991 and 04.02.1992 passed in the aforesaid case. It has been stated by respondent-3 that he was bhumidhar of the land in dispute and his name was recorded in basic consolidation record. No objection has been filed during consolidation, as such his name continued in the final consolidation record and village was notified under Section 52 of the Act. After notification under Section 52, an objection has been filed before Consolidation Officer, Deewan Bazar, Gorakhpur and a fabricated compromise was filed, forging his signatures on it and the order dated 04.02.1992 has been secured on it. It was alleged that village in question was never within the jurisdiction of Consolidation Officer Deewan Bazar. Entire proceedings has been fabricated and order passed in it, was without jurisdiction. The application of respondent-3 has been allowed by the Consolidation Officer on the same day on 15.02.1992 and the order dated 04.02.1992 has been recalled and 15.03.1992 has been fixed for hearing.
5. Ramdev filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 2376) from the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur heard the revision and by the order dated 28.07.2000 held that the recall application was allowed on the same day without giving any opportunity of hearing to parties. On this finding, the revision was allowed and order dated 15.02.1992 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer to decide the recall application afresh after hearing the parties. Respondent-3 filed a writ petition (registered as Writ -B No 40060 of 2004) against the aforesaid order. It has been stated that in the meantime Ramdev died on 20.07.2002 and Smt. Shivpatti Devi died on 3.3.2005 and their heirs were substituted in the writ petition on 8.4.2007.
6. It appears that after dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer was started, in pursuance of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.07.2000. The petitioners appeared before the Consolidation Officer and filed an application dated 11.11.2011 for dismissing the recall application as abated on the ground that no application for substitution has been filed for substituting the heirs of Ramdev (died on 20.07.2002) and Smt. Shivpatti Devi (died on 03.03.2005). When no ord
