High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63230 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1177 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Dixit Respondent :- State Of Up And 24 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Karuna Srivastava,Rati Bhan Singh,Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Tiwari,C.S.C.,Dr. Akhilesh Kumar,Virendra Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. In Re: Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 5 of 2025 1. Counter affidavit to the stay application is taken on record. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that stay application be dismissed as not pressed. 3. In view of the statement made by counsel for the petitioner, the instant stay application is dismissed as not pressed.
Decision
Order on the Writ Petition 1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Virendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an objection under Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act was filed by petitioner's father (Babu Lal) for recording of his name over the plot in question on the basis of sale deed dated 1.6.1977 executed by Baiju in favour of Babu Lal and Ramesh Chandra. The aforementioned proceeding was registered as case No. 162 of 1996-97 under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act before Consolidation Officer and Consolidation Officer vide order dated 27.5.1997 directed to record the name of Ramesh Chandra and sons of Babu Lal on the basis of sale deed dated 1.6.1977 after expunging the name of Ram Singh from plot No. 420M area 2 biswa of Khata No. 473. A case under Section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by petitioner's father Babu Lal for recording plot No. 420/2 area 2 biswa as abadi in the place of general abadi. Respondent no.4 (Mahesh Chand son of Late Ram Singh) filed an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act against the order dated 27.5.1997 which was registered as appeal No. 0013 and the aforementioned appeal was allowed vide order dated 30.9.2023 setting aside the order dated 27.5.1997 and matter was remanded back before Consolidation Officer to decide the title objection afresh considering the point relating to Section 168-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by petitioner was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 30.1.2024. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner for the following relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.1.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Agra/ Respondent no.2 bearing case/ revision No. 0317 of 2023 "Pramod Kumar Dixit Vs. Mahesh Chand and Others" under Section 48 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 and impugned order dated 30.9.2023 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation Agra/ respondent no.3 bearing appeal/ case No. 0013 of 2018 "Suresh Chand Vs. Ramesh Chand" under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act." 3. This Court entertained the matter on 20.3.2024 accordingly affidavits are exchanged between the parties. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act was decided by the Consolidation Officer but in appeal filed by private respondents, the order was set aside and matter was remanded back before Consolidation Officer to decide the title dispute afresh after affording proper opportunity to both the parties. He submitted that in pursuance of the remand order date 15.11.1995 passed in appeal, the matter was decided by Consolidation Officer in accordance with law vide order dated 27.5.1997. He submitted that private respondents again filed appeal against the order dated 27.5.1997 which was again allowed and matter was remitted back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh considering the issue relating to Section 168-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. He submitted that revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that twice the matter has been decided by Consolidation Officer, as such, remand order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation is abuse of process of law. He submitted that entire dispute can be decided by the Appellate Court himself rather to remand the matter again and again before the Consolidation Officer. He further submitted that there was no illegality in the order of Consolidation Officer dated 27.5.1997, as such, the impugned order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation should be set aside and the order of Consolidation Officer is to be maintained. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Virendra Singh, learned counsel for private respondents submitted that while passing the remand order by Settlement Officer Consolidation on 30.9.2023, the finding of fact has been recorded that there was no proper consideration of the point relating to Section 168-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as well as the effect of the order dated 8.9.1983 passed by Revenue Court, as such, no interference is required against the remand order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal. He submitted that petitioner can appear before the Consolidation Officer and contest the case on merit rather writ petition before this Court. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that in the proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, the dispute was decided by Consolidation Officer twice in favour of petitioner but in appeal, the matter was remanded back twice by Settlement Officer Consolidation to the Consolidation Officer. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed on behalf of the petitioner against the remand order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal has been dismissed. 8. The crux of the matter is that Consolidation Officer in pursuance of the earlier remand order passed in appeal has decided the dispute under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, as such, the remand order again passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation is not in the interest of justice rather the appellate Court should himself decide the appeal considering the points relating to Section 168-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as well as the result of the order dated 8.9.1983 passed by Revenue Court by framing points of determination in proper manner in place of remand before the Consolidation Officer. 9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in 2022 (155) RD 294 Nadakerappa since deceased by L.Rs.and others versus Pillamma since deceased by L.Rs. and others has held the remand order cannot be passed as a matter of course. Paragraph No.25 of the Judgment rendered in Nadakerappa (supra) will be relevant for perusal which is as under: "25. The Division Bench, without assigning any cogent reasons, has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and has remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal. It is settled law that the order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course. An order of remand cannot also be passed for the mere purpose of remanding a proceeding to the lower court or the Tribunal. An endeavour has to be made by the Appellate Court to dispose of the case on merits. Where both the sides have led oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court has to decide the appeal on merits instead of remanding the case to the lower court or the Tribunal. We are of the view that, in the instant case, the Division Bench has remanded the matter without any justification." 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned appellate order dated 30.9.2023 passed by respondent no.3, Settlement Officer Consolidation, Agra and revisional order dated 30.6.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. 11. The writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remitted back before the respondent no.3, Settlement Officer Consolidation Agra to register the appeal on its original number and decide the same after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties in the light of the observation made in the body of the judgement expeditiously preferably within period of three months. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Vandana Y. Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad