IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Angad Pratap Singh & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director Consolidation/ Addl. District Magistrate (F/R), Lakhimpur Kheri & Ors. - Respondents
Writ - B No. 108 of 2023
Decided On : 10-02-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226/227 - U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 - Section 48 and 48 (1) - Order of remand - Interlocutory order - Petitioner stated that the order of remand, under unsustainable in the eye of law particularly in view of explanation given in Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1953"). As such, indulgence of this Court is required in matter – Held, Appeal in the proceedings in view of the scheme of the Act itself, and this requirement would stand fulfilled if the matter is remanded to SOC for a fresh decision - DDC has passed the order without considering the case of the petitioners and without adverting to evidence filed by them, impugned order is liable to be set aside - Court is of the view that interference in the impugned order is required order impugned quashed - Matter is remanded back to respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate, (F/R) Lakhimpur Kheri to decide the matter afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order – Ordered Accordingly
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Nazim Ali Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to respondent Nos. 3 to 26 is hereby dispensed with. Liberty is also provided to these respondents to file an appropriate application of recall of this order, if they are aggrieved by it.
3. By means of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 22.12.2022, whereby, the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate (F/R), Lakhimpur Kheri remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer concerned for deciding the case afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation. The operative portion of the order dated 22.12.2022 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:-
^^eSaus fuxjkuhdrkZx.kksa o foi{khx.kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.kksa dks lquk rFkk xzke ds vfHkys[kksa o Hkwfp= vkfn dk Hkyh&Hkkafr voyksdu fd;kA voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd iz'uxr okn xkVk la[;k&96 fe0 ls lacaf/kr gS] ftlesa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds fjV ;kfpdk la[;k&20 ¼lhfyax½@1993 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 02-08-2004 }kjk foi{khx.kksa ds firk rjlse flag e`rd dks xkVk la[;k&96@1@20-00] 94@1@1-90] 94@4@3-10 ij laØe.kh; Hkwfe/kj vafdr fd;k x;k gSA bl vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ds ckn la[;k&82@2020&21 vUrxZr /kkjk&21 ¼1½ tksr pdcUnh vf/kfu;e esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 03-02-2021 }kjk foi{khx.k vaxn izrki flag vkfn dks xkVk la[;k&96@1@20-00 ds lkis{k ewY;kadu dk pd izfn"V fd;k x;k] ijUrq bl vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa rS;kj dh x;h la'kks/ku rkfydk esa fuxjkuhdrkZx.k tks o"kZ 1976 ls iz'uxr Hkwfe ds iV~Vk/kkjd gSa] mudk pd lekIr djds lhfyax esa ntZ fd;k x;k gS] ftldk {ks=kf/kdkj pdcUnh izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks ugha gSA iz'uxr xkVk la[;k&96] ftldk cUnkscLrh {ks=Qy 44-22 ,dM+ vfHkys[kksa esa vafdr gS rFkk ckn esa bldk {ks=Qy pdcUnh esa cढ+dj 48-28 ,dM+ vafdr fd;k x;kA xkVk la[;k&96 esa gh ou Hkwfe 24-50 ,dM+ lfEefyr gSA pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k esa fdruk {ks=Qy lhfyax ds le; ou Hkwfe esa vkjf{kr Fkh rFkk fdruh Hkwfe lhfyax ls voeqDr gqbZ rFkk muesa ls fdruh Hkwfe ij fdu&fdu iV~Vsnkjksa dks fdrus {ks=Qy dk iV~Vk fd;k x;k \ bl rF; dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSA ;|fi ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa foi{khx.kksa dks xkVk la[;k&96@1@20-00 ,dM+ ds lkis{k pd izfn"V fd;k tkuk mfpr gS] ijUrq mlls izHkkfor gksus okys iV~Vk/kkjdksa ds fgrksa dks Hkh /;ku j[kuk vko';d gSA xkVk la[;k&96@1@20-00 ,dM+ dks NksM+dj 'ks"k ou Hkwfe o iV~Vs/kkjdksa ds lEcU/k esa rF;ijd foLr`r vkns'k fd;k tkuk vko';d gS] ftlls fd lEcfU/kr i{kdkjksa dks viuk i{k o lk{; izLrqr djus dk volj fey ldsA pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k esa izHkkfor iV~Vsnkjksa ls vkuqikfrd ewY;kadu [kkfjt djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq vuqikyu djrs le; fdlh&fdlh iV~Vsnkj dk iwjk pd gh lekIr dj fn;k x;k gS] tks mfpr ugha gSA pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dh iqf"V djds cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh }kjk Hkh =qfV dh x;h gSA blfy, U;kf;d n`f"Vdks.k ls mfpr gksxk fd iz'uxr okn ijh{k.k U;k;ky; dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk izR;kofrZr fd;k tk;s fd og lHkh lEcfU/kr i{kdkjksa dks lqudj izR;sd fcUnq ij rF;ijd foLr`r vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq, ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dk vuqikyu djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA rn~uqlkj lHkh fuxjkfu;ka Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSaA mijksDr foospukuqlkj vkns'k gqvk fd %&
vkns'k
mijksDr lElr fuxjkfu;ka Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ds okn la[;k&82@20&21 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 03-02-2021 ,oa cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh dh vihy la[;k&376 yxk;r 384 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 26-05-2022 fujLr fd;s tkrs gSaA okn pdcUnh vf/kdkjh vfUre vfHkys[k] izFke] y[kheiqj&[khjh dks bl funsZ'k ds izR;kofrZr fd;k tkrk gS fd og lEcfU/kr i{kdkjksa dks lqudj izR;sd fcUnq ij rF;ijd foLr`r vkns'k ikfjr djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA i{kx.k pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ¼mijksDr½ ds U;k;ky; esa fnukad 25-01-2023 dks is'k gksaA ;gh vkns'k fuxjkuh la[;k& 524 @202254104300002203] 525 @202254104300002204] 526 @202253104300002205] 527 @202254104300002206] 528 @20225410430
Sher Singh (dead) Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation and others
Ramakant Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P. and others
Preetam Singh vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation and others
Sheshmani and another vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Basti, U.P. and others
Jagdamba Prasad Vs. Kripa Shankar
Gaya Deen (D) through L.Rs and others Vs. Hanuman Prasad (D) through L.Rs and others
Ashwin Kumar Patel vs. Upendra J. Patel
Vijay Nath and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others
Bashir Ahmad Khan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and others
Tirath v. Joint Director of Consolidation
SupremeToday
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to examine and decide cases on merits without unnecessary remand, emphasizing the need for expedient resolution of disputes.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute findings made by subordinate authorities unless empo....
The court affirmed the authority of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to remand cases for fresh decisions when evidence requires further inquiry, underscoring the need for thorough examination bef....
The jurisdiction of consolidation authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, post-notification under Section 52(1) is ambiguous and requires clarification by a larger bench.
The main legal point established is that revisions under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard, and the authority m....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.