Back
2015 Supreme(All) 1704
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Smt. Smriti Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jhansi and Others – Respondents
Writ B No. 18513 of 2015
Decided On : 29-5-2015
For the Petitioner:Manish Kumar Nigam and Anil Kumar Mehrotra, Advocates
For the Respondents:C.S.C., Shiv Kumar, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties and following the procedure under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Headnote:
Consolidation of Holdings Act - Land Dispute - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9, Section 11 - The court discussed the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation, the objections filed by various parties, and the recall applications. The court highlighted the importance of giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties and the procedure to be followed under the Act. It also emphasized the sufficiency of cause for condoning delay in filing recall applications and the maintainability of separate recall applications for different causes of action.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute related to the land recorded in khatas 52, 106, and 107 of village Dhimlauni, tahsil Mau, district Jhansi. Various objections were filed by different parties, and recall applications were made regarding the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recall applications for certain orders were within time, and the delay in filing one of the recall applications was properly explained and sufficient for condonation. It also held that the application for recall of a specific order was maintainable and not a review application. The court emphasized the importance of giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties and following the procedure under the Act.
Issues: The issues involved the timeliness of recall applications, the sufficiency of cause for condoning delay, and the maintainability of separate recall applications for different causes of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties and following the procedure under the Act. It also highlighted the sufficiency of cause for condoning delay in filing recall applications and the maintainability of separate recall applications for different causes of action.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the impugned orders did not suffer from any illegalities.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Heard Sri Anil Mehrotra and Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Bhanot and Sri Shiv Kumar Singh, for respondents-7 to 9, 15 and 16.
2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation (respondent-2) dated 24.09.2014 and Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1) dated 23.02.2015, arising in title proceeding in U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. The dispute between the parties relates to the land recorded in khatas 52, 106 and 107 of village Dhimlauni, tahsil Mau, district Jhansi. In basic consolidation year, name of Moti Lal son of Bhaiya Lal was recorded over khatas 52 and 106, while names of Moti Lal son of Bhaiya Lal, Ram Gopal, Kishun Lal and Madan Gopal sons of Bal Mukund were recorded over khata 107. Moti Lal died on 06.05.1978. Ram Gopal and others (now represented by respondents-3 to 6, 12 and 13) filed an objection, under Section 9 of the Act, for recording their names, over all the aforesaid khatas. Kusma Devi daughter of Baldeo Prasad filed an objection for recording her name over the khatas in dispute and claimed ½ share in it. Narvada (now represented by the petitioner) and Rama (respondent-14), daughters of Moti Lal filed an objection for recording their names over the land in dispute in place of Moti Lal, on the basis of registered will dated 01.04.1977, executed by Moti Lal, in their favour. All the objections were consolidated and tried by Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 22.11.1979, held that Baldeo (father of Kusuma Devi) died in 1373 F. At that time, Kusma Devi was married as such his share was inherited by his brother Moti Lal. Moti Lal executed a gift deed dated 11.11.1970, in respect of 12-13 acre of land in favour of Ram Gopal, Kishun Lal and Madan Gopal sons of Bal Mukund, which was recorded in their names, in separate khata. The remaining land belong to Moti Lal, who executed a registered will dated 01.04.1977, in favour of his daughters Narvada and Rama. On these findings, objections of Kusma Devi daughter of Baldeo and Ram Gopal, Kishun Lal and Madan Gopal sons of Bal Mukund were dismissed and the names of Narvada, Rama (daughters of Moti Lal) and Gayatri Devi were directed to be recorded on the basis of will dated 01.04.1977.
4. Kusma Devi did not file any appeal from order dated 22.11.1979. Krishna Gopal (now represented by respondents-3 to 6) filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 96/81), from the order dated 22.11.1979. The appeal was dismissed in default on 11.11.1980. Krishna Gopal filed an application dated 25.11.1980 for recall of the order dated 11.11.1980, which was also dismissed in default on 04.03.1981. Krishna Gopal filed an application dated 09.03.1981 for recall of the order dated 04.03.1981 and 11.11.1980, which was also dismissed in default on 08.04.1981. Krishna Gopal filed an application dated 08.04.1981 for recall of the orders dated 08.04.1981, 04.03.1981 and 11.11.1980, which was also dismissed in default on 12.07.1988. Thereafter, Krishna Gopal died on 30.10.1990.
5. Smt. Krishna Sharma, Pankaj, Neeraj and Jalaj (respondents-3 to 6) filed an application dated 25.04.2006 for recall of the orders dated 12.07.1988, 08.04.1981, 04.03.1981 and 11.11.1980 and restoring the appeal to its original number and hearing the appeal on merit, along with delay condonation application. Settlement Officer Consolidation (respondent-2), by order dated 27.04.2007 , allowed the recall application, set aside orders dated 12.07.1988, 08.04.1981, 04.03.1981 and 11.11.1980 and restored the appeal. Thereafter, the appeal was allowed by order dated 20.06.2009 and order of Consolidation Officer has been set aside and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for fresh trail on merit.
6. The petitioner and Smt. Gayatri Sharma filed an application dated 25.04.2011 for recall of the order dated 20.06.2009, stating therein that Narvada died in 2003
