Jyoti Jaisawal vs Additional District Magistrate

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2237

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH PATHAK, J.
Smt. Jyoti Jaisawal - Petitioner
Versus
Additional District Magistrate and Others - Respondents
WRIT B NO. 1962 OF 2022.
Decided On : 21-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Ajay Shankar, Pratibha Jaiswal, Triveni Shanker.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act - Sections 9-A(2) and 48 - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules - Rule 109-A - Writ petition challenging orders passed by Consolidation Courts regarding application under Rule 109-A during pendency of revision - Petitioner contended Consolidation Authorities had no jurisdiction to entertain application while revisional rights were pending - Authority confirmed that pending revisions do not impede applications under the Rule 109-A - Petitioner’s claim based on unregistered Will-deed lacks legal backing as previous orders established the contesting respondent's rights. (Paras 3, 4, 8, 9)

(B) Jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities - Orders made under Rule 109-A are maintainable despite pendency of appeals or revisions unless stayed by competent authority. (Paras 7, 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenged application under Rule 109-A which has been allowed by Consolidation Authorities despite pending revisions against the Settlement Officer’s order from 2001, based on a Will-deed executed after that order.

Findings of Court:
The application under Rule 109-A was justifiable and maintainable, and Consolidation Courts acted correctly in allowing it.

Issues: Whether an application under Rule 109-A is maintainable during the pendency of a revision under Section 48 U.P.C.H. Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere pendency of a revision does not impede consolidation authorities from proceeding under Rule 109-A, reaffirming that legislative intent permits continued execution unless stayed.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Pathak, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. Instant writ petition is arising out of proceeding under Rule 109- A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. Petitioner, by way of instant writ petition, has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the orders passed by all the three Consolidation Courts in application under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules (in brevity C.H. Rules) filed on behalf of contesting respondent. She has also challenged the consequential orders dated 14.09.2022 and 05.11.2022 passed by Consolidation Officer.

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that Consolidation Authorities have illegally allowed the application under Rule 109-A of C.H. Rules filed on behalf of the contesting respondent, despite the fact that against the order dated 25.6.2001, which has been sought to be implemented, revisions were pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, Consolidation Authorities have got no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Rule 109-A of C.H. Rules and pass any order.

4. Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition are that Dhanesara (predecessor in the interest of petitioner) has moved an objection under Section 9 -A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (in brevity U.P.C.H. Act), which was allowed by order dated 18.5.1985 passed by Consolidation Officer. Having aggrieved, contesting respondent has preferred appeal. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 25.6.2001, has allowed the appeal and quashed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Some of the affected persons have preferred revision, claiming them-self as successors of Dhanesara, assailing the order dated 25.06.2001 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In the meantime, to implement the order dated 25.6.2001, contesting respondent has moved an application in the year 2014 under Rule 109-A of C.H. Rules. Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 13.1.2016, has allowed the application. Having been aggrieved, petitioner has preferred appeal assailing the order dated 13.1.2016. Settlement Officer of Consolidation has dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 15.11.2020. Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of the petitioner has dismissed the same vide order dated 10.6.2022. Subsequent there to consequential orders date 14.09.2022 and 05.11.2022 have been passed by Consolidation Officer for giving effect to the orders passed under Rule 109-A of C.H. Rules in the land record. Having been aggrieved against said orders instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

5. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that while the revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act is pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Consolidation Authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Rule 109-A of C.H. Rules. It is further submitted that petitioner is claiming his right and title over the property in question on the basis of the unregistered Will-deed dated 3.7.2001. Assailing the order dated 25.6.2001 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation several heirs and legal representatives of Dhanesara have preferred the revisions. During the pendency of the aforesaid revisions, present petitioner has also preferred his revision dated 23.2.2021 assailing the order dated 25.6.2001. It is further submitted that the Consolidation Authorities have given a perverse finding with respect to the non-pendency of the revision on behalf of the petitioner. Even assuming that no revision was filed on behalf of the petitioner, revision filed on behalf of the other heirs and legal representatives of Dhanesara was pending at the relevant date, therefore, pendency of the revisions cannot be ignored by the Consolidation Authorities. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid revisions stay order dated 29.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document