Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Ashok Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. And Others - Respondents
Writ B. No. 70499 Of 2010
Decided On : 10-04-2024
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 12/2023
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant Amendment Application has been filed on 13.12.2023 by which prayer has been made to allow the amendment in the prayer clause of the writ petition for quashing the orders dated 02.02.2000 and 26.08.2001 passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act.
3. Considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, no case is made out for Amendment by which prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 02.02.2000 & 26.08.2001 passed by Consolidation Officer/Assistant Consolidation Officer under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act, although the instant writ petition arises out of reference proceeding.
4. The Amendment Application is accordingly, rejected.
Order on Writ Petition
1. Heard Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ram Autar Verma as well as Sri Dan Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 9 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Plot No. 3538 Area 2.88 acare situated in village Nademau, Pargana Saurikh, Tehsil Tirwa, District Kannauj belonged to one Bheekham Singh S/o Manohar Singh. After death of Bheekham Singh the names of Yogendra Singh, Brijendra Singh, Virendra Singh and Narendra Singh being their legal heirs were recorded over plot in question. Yogendra Singh had executed a sale-deed of his ¼ share in Plot No. 3538 in favour of respondent nos. 4 to 9. Vijendra Singh had also executed a sale-deed of his ¼ share in Plot No. 3538 in favour of petitioner. Virendra Singh had also executed a sale-deed of his ¼ share in favour of the petitioner and another ¼ share in favour of another person. Narendra Singh had also executed a sale-deed in favour of one Ashok Kumar Singh of Mukut Singh in respect of to his ¼ share. On the basis of aforementioned sale-deed respective Vendees came in possession over their respective area purchased by them. Plot No. 3538 stated to be situated adjacent to the main road. Respondent nos. 4 to 9 filed an application before the Consolidation authorities for preparing reference on the basis of final order 02.02.2000 & 26.08.2001 order passed under Section 12 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Act). The aforementioned case was registered as case no. 205 of 2002. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 07.02.2002 decided the aforementioned case. Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 21 of U.P.C.H. Act, against the order dated 07.02.2002 passed by the Consolidation Officer, which was registered as appeal no. 327. The aforementioned appeal was heard by the Settlement Consolidation Officer and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the Settlement Consolidation Officer but appeal was dismissed on merit vide order dated 02.07.2010. Against the appeallate order dated 30.06.2010 as well as order of the Consolidation Officer dated 07.02.2002 petitioner filed a Revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was registered as Revision No. 230. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 12.08.2010 dismissed the Revision filed by petitioner. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order passed by Consolidation Officer dated 07.02.2002, order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 30.06.2010 as well as order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12.08.2010.
3. The aforementioned writ petition was heard on 06.12.2010, but the same was ordered to be listed after three weeks.
4. On 25.11.2006, the writ petition was dismissed in absence of learned counsel for the petitioner. Against the order dated 25.11.2006 delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2021 along with Recall Application No. 2 of 2021 were filed on behalf of the petitioner, which were allowed vide
AI
The court held that challenges to orders under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act after a significant delay are not permissible, emphasizing the need for timely legal action.
The court affirmed that orders of the Consolidation Officer are not subject to challenge under Article 226, and applications under Rule 109-A are not maintainable when related appeals are pending.
The court upheld the necessity of procedural fairness in consolidation proceedings, emphasizing that all parties must be afforded the opportunity to present their case and evidence.
The civil court's decree in an injunction suit cannot be enforced under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, affirming the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation exceeded jurisdiction by not considering the limitation and locus standi of the respondents in appeals under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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.
Revisions involving the same parties and disputes must be consolidated for efficient resolution under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The court established that cancellation of earlier consolidation proceedings under the U.P.C.H. Act allows for new proceedings and does not accord finality to prior adjudications between the parties.
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
