Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
RADHEY SHYAM - Appellant
Versus
D.D.C. AND OTHERS - Respondent
Writ B No. 19131 of 2003
Decided on : 13-02-2018
Jurisdiction - Abadi Land - The court held that the consolidation courts did not have jurisdiction to decide title disputes regarding Abadi plots and the petitioner had a remedy in the Civil Court for declaration of his title.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute related to Plot Nos.1061 and 1062, recorded as abadi land. The petitioner filed an impleadment application in a revision case, which was subsequently decided without considering the petitioner's application. The petitioner then filed an application for recall, which was also dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to show legal interest in the disputed plots and therefore, was not entitled to challenge the orders. The court also held that the consolidation courts did not have jurisdiction to decide title disputes regarding Abadi plots.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's legal interest in the disputed plots, the jurisdiction of consolidation courts, and the maintainability of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's failure to demonstrate legal interest in the disputed plots and the lack of jurisdiction of consolidation courts to decide title disputes regarding Abadi plots.
Final Decision: The writ petition lacked merits and was dismissed by the court.
SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to Plot Nos.1061 and 1062 which admittedly are recorded as abadi land.
3. It transpires from the record that in Case No.3953, the concerned Assistant Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 16.1.1975 directing that the name of respondent nos. 2 & 3 be recorded in relation to the said plot on the basis of some 'Patta' granted in their favour. Against the aforesaid order dated 16.1.1975, the respondent no.4 filed Appeal No.2336 which was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District Varanasi vide order dated 7.5.2002 and the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Consolidation Officer to pass fresh orders after hearing all the concerned parties.
4. Against the aforesaid order dated 7.5.2002 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 filed a revision under section 48 of the Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi, respondent no.1 which was numbered as Revision No.800/996.
5. It transpires that in the aforesaid Revision No.800/996, the petitioner had filed an impleadment application praying that he may be impleaded as respondent in the said revision. In Revision No.800/996, the respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 entered into a compromise whereby respondent nos. 2 & 3 relinquished their right over Plot No.1061. The Revision No.800/996 was subsequently decided in terms of the said compromise by respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 7.12.2002. The aforesaid order dated 7.12.2002 was passed by respondent no.1 without passing any orders on the impleadment application of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application dated 13.12.2003 praying that the order dated 7.12.2002 be recalled and Revision No.800/996 be decided after hearing the petitioner. The aforesaid application dated 13.12.2003 was dismissed by the respondent no.1 vide his order dated 11.3.2003.
6. The orders dated 11.3.2003 and 7.12.2002 passed by respondent no.1 are under challenge in the present writ petition.
7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent no.1 had committed grave illegality in deciding Revision No.800/996 without deciding the impleadment application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was an interested party and he had legal interest in Plot Nos.1061/1062 which would be evident from the report dated 20.9.2001 submitted by the Naib Tahsildar annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
8. Rebutting the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the respondents has argued that the order dated 7.12.2002 and 11.3.2003 passed by the respondent no.1 are according to law and there was no requirement to hear the petitioner in the said case as the petitioner had no interest in the outcome of the case.
9. I have perused the record and considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties.
10. A perusal of the impleadment application filed by the petitioner in Revision No.800/996 which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and the recall application dated 13.12.2002 filed by the petitioner in Revision No.800/996 which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition would show that the petitioner has not stated his interest in the outcome of the case or in Plot Nos.1061/1062. The report 20.9.2001 of the concerned Naib Tahsildar which has been annexed as annexure-1 to the writ petition is not relevant piece of evidence as the Naib Tahsildar had no role after the Village was included in the consolidation operation. It is an admitted fact that the Village is under consolidation operation.
11. In view of the aforesaid, it would serve no purpose to allow the writ petition and direct the respondent no. 1 to decide the impleadment application as well as the recall application of the petitioner on merits.
12. Further, as the petitioner has not been able to show his legal interest in Plot No.1061/1062, he is not entitled
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
