IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial orders must be made with integrity and transparency, and any manipulation or procedural irregularity undermines the validity of such orders.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Dwijendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4.

2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondent nos. 5 to 20 is dispensed with.

3. By means of present writ petition the petitoiners have challenged order dated 21.02.2024, passed in Revision No. 34 of 2024 -Kafil Ahmad Vs. Syed Mohd. Rahman, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had filed objections under Section 9-A(II) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, claiming their right over Plot Nos. 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1124, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1130, 1131, 1111, 1112, 1137, 870, 1138, 1247, 1114, 779/3, 842, 843 and 2661, situated at Village -Kisni, Pargana -Jagdishpur, Tehsil -Musafirkhana, Sultanpur (now Amethi). The petitioners claimed their right over on the basis that same was owned and possessed by their ancestors and have devolved on them on the basis of General Rule of Succession. It was stated that the said plots have been wrongly recorded in the name of MOhd. Ahmad and Syed Ahmad S/o Nawab Ali. The Consolidation Officer has decided the application of the petitioners and passed order in their favour by means of order dated 28.09.2000.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2000, an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by respondent nos. 5 to 13, which appeal was dismissed by order dated 25.05.2005. In the appeal it was submitted that the case was decided on 28.09.2000 by the Consolidation Officer, with undue haste and it was contended that the case as not listed on the said date on which it was decided. It was submitted that the case was listed on 18.09.2000, on which date arguments of the parties were heard and next date was fixed, but portion of the order sheet was destroyed where next date was endorsed and 28.09.2000 was subsequently inserted, on which date no proceedings took place and the matter was further listed on 13.10.2000, which date was deleted and the matter was fixed for 25.09.2000.

6. It was submitted that perusal of the order sheet would indicate that the order sheet has been altered and manipulated only because the Presiding Officer was about to retire and therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) did not agree with the submissions of the appellant and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

7. Revision was filed against the order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who has allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for determination afresh. While allowing the revision, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was of the view that as per order sheet the case as listed on 28.08.2000 and the parties were present and the case was adjourned for 18.09.2000. On 18.09.2000 general date was fixed i.e. 28.09.2000 and subsequently the case was listed on 16.10.2000, 13.11.2000 and 04.01.2001. He has further noticed that typed order sheet exists till passing of order dated 28.09.2000 and there is no mention as to whether parties were heard or not.

8. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has further noticed the fact that in the year 2000 facility of stenographer was not provided to the Consolidation Officer and accordingly entire order sheet is suspect and the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer become suspect. He has further noticed that in the present case date was fixed for 04.01.2001 but as the Presiding Officer was about to retire, date was changed and the impugned order dated 28.09.2000 was passed by the Consolidation Officer.

9. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision and se