Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Shiv Shankar Singh & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow & Ors. – Respondents
Writ-B No.28 of 2024
Decided On : 11-01-2024
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 20 - Writ petition for quashing orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation and Consolidation Officer - Petitioners challenged orders allowing restoration of a case and fixing a hearing date without proper pleadings - Court held that relief not sought cannot be granted, reaffirming established legal principles. (Paras 19-21)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought to quash orders restoring a case and fixing a hearing date, arguing that the relief was not properly sought.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the orders were illegal as they granted relief not asked for.
Issues: Whether relief not asked for could be granted without proper pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a decision cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings, emphasizing the necessity of proper pleadings for granting relief.
Result: Petition partly allowed, orders set aside regarding hearing on the application dated 27.05.2016.
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-Sri Varun Pratap Singh and Sri Swarnim Pandey; learned counsel for the State, Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma, Advocate and Sri Aditya Kumar Pandey, Advocate, for opposite party No.7 on whose behalf a Vakaltnama has been filed, which is taken on record and Sri Vikram Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
2. In view of order proposed to be passed this Court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party Nos.6 and 8, who are real brothers of opposite party No.7, as the facts of the case are not in dispute and to the view of this Court even on appearance these parties would not be in position to dispute the facts and in view of the order proposed to be passed the matter would be heard and decided on merits and accordingly, the notice to opposite party Nos.6 and 8 is dispensed with and with the consent of the Counsel for the parties who are present before this Court this petition is being decided at admission stage.
3. Present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.01.2022 passed by Consolidation Officer, (opposite party No.4) Tehsil-Kunda. District-Pratapgarh as contained in Annexure No.2 to this writ petition to the extent it provides for hearing on application dated 27.05.2016 moved by the petitioners.
iii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no-4 to decide the objection filed by the father of the petitioners under section 20 of the Act, 1953 on merits."
4. Vide impugned order dated 18.01.2022 passed in Case No.24/2021-22 (Shivshankar & Others vs. Lal Diwakar Pratap Singh & Others), the opposite party No.4-Consolidation Officer, Kunda, Pratapgarh (in short "C.O.") allowed the application for restoration/recall of the order dated 09.08.2016 filed in the month of December, 2018 by the private opposite party Nos.6 to 8 namely Lal Diwakar Pratap Singh, Pushpraj Singh and Purshottam Singh, respectively, all sons of Late Jwala Singh and set aside the order dated 09.08.2016 passed in Case No.133/2015-2016 and fixed the case for hearing on the application dated 27.05.2016, which was allowed vide order dated 23.06.2016.
5. Vide impugned order dated 11.12.2023, the opposite party No.3/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh (in short "D.D.C.") dismissed the Revision No.826 of 2023, Computerized Case No.T2022530257000021 (Shivshankar & Others vs. Lal Diwakar Pratap Singh & others), instituted under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") by the petitioners challenging the order dated 18.01.2022, meaning thereby, the opposite party No.3 affirmed the order dated 18.01.2022.
6. Brief facts, which are relevant for the purposes of disposal of present petition, are to the effect that an objection dated 03.02.1993/04.02.1993 under Section 20 of the Act of 1953 was preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and the same was dismissed for want of prosecution on 18.12.1998 and thereafter, an application dated 27.05.2016 for restoration of the case was preferred by the petitioners and the same was allowed by the opposite party No.4/C.O. vide order dated 23.06.2016 and thereafter, opposite party No.4/C.O. decided the case i.e. Case No.133/2015-16 on merits vide order dated 09.08.2016.
7. On coming to know about the final order dated 09.08.2016, the opposite party Nos.6 to 8 preferred an application for restoration/recall of order dated 09.08.2016 stating therein that contesting opposite party namely Jwala Singh, father of the applicants/opposi
Relief not sought in specific terms cannot be granted, emphasizing the necessity of proper pleadings in legal proceedings.
The failure to frame issues and allow evidence in property disputes violates procedural fairness, necessitating remand for proper adjudication.
The court ruled that a party's knowledge of an order and failure to justify significant delays in appeals precludes the recall of orders passed on merits.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must adhere to remand orders and consider all relevant records and admissions before making decisions regarding co-tenancy rights.
Authorities must provide adequate opportunity for parties to present their case; decisions made in haste without hearing can lead to prejudice.
Successive orders of remand in consolidation proceedings are impermissible; authorities must expedite resolution of long-pending disputes.
The court established that under the Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953, authorities retain the power to correct entries in revenue records even after the finalization of consolidation proceedings,....
The Deputy Director of Consolidation's remand for a fresh hearing was justified to ensure fairness, given the significant delay and procedural irregularities in prior decisions.
The court emphasized the necessity of fair representation and substantiated reasoning in administrative decisions, especially when property rights are at stake.
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
