High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83684 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 68435 of 2010 Petitioner :- Sewaram And Others Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation Saharanpur And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Srivastava,R.G. Prasad,Raj Kishore Ydav Counsel for Respondent :- A.K.S. Bais,D.D. Chauhan Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for the gram sabha, Mr. A.K.S. Bais, learned counsel for respondent nos.11 & 12 and Mr. Ajai Kumar Baranwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.
Legal Reasoning
2. Brief facts of the case are that the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") was initiated at the instance of petitioners in respect to the plot in question and the Consolidation Officer has decided the dispute in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 20.1.1994 for recording the name of petitioners in the revenue records. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 20.1.1994, an appeal was filed by the gaon sabha and the appellate Court has set aside the order of Consolidation Officer but in revision filed by petitioners the order of Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation were set aside by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 5.8.2005 and remanded the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the title dispute afresh on merit. In pursuance of the remand order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation proceeding was registered before the Consolidation Officer as Case No.241, under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. Issues were framed in the proceeding and parties have adduced evidence before the Consolidation Officer. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 11.9.2006 allowed the objection and directed to record the name of petitioners as bhumidhar with transferable right over the plot in question. Against the order of Consolidation officer, three appeals under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act were filed. Two appeals were filed by gram sabha and one by Surajmal and others. All the three appeals were clubbed and heard together. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 25.9.2007 allowed the appeals filed by gram sabha as well as Surajmal and others in part setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 11.9.2006 and remitted the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding afresh on merit. Petitioners challenged the order of appellate Court dated 25.9.2007 before Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was registered as Revision Nos.50, 51 & 52. Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revisions filed by the petitioners vide order dated 16.9.2010. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. issue a suitable writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.9.2010 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur (contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition) and order dated 25.9.2007 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Saharanpur (contained in Annexure No.5 to this writ petition). ii. issue any other suitable writ, order or directions, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." iii. Award the cost of writ petition." 3. This Court entertained the matter on 24.11.2010 and stayed the further proceedings before the Consolidation Officer in pursuance of the remand order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 4. In pursuance of the order dated 24.11.2010, the parties have exchanged their pleadings.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the title objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act filed on behalf of the petitioners was decided after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence, as such, the remand order passed in appeal is abuse of process of law. He further submitted that earlier also the Consolidation Officer has decided the title dispute in favour of the petitioner but in revision the matter was remanded back, accordingly, Consolidation Officer has decided the dispute in accordance with law. He further submitted that the revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed on the misconceived ground. He further submitted that the impugned appellate order and revisional order should be set aside and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer should be maintained. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel for the gram sabha, Mr. A.K.S. Bais, learned counsel for respondent nos.11 & 12 and Mr. Ajai Kumar Baranwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents submitted that no interference is required against the order impugned passed in the appeal remanding the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the title dispute afresh. He further submitted that the proper opportunity were not afforded to the parties, as such, the matter has been remanded back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute afresh on merit. They further submitted that in view of the earlier entry of the plot in question, no right will accrue in
Decision
favour of the petitioner, as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that in the title dispute, the Consolidation Officer after framing issues and giving opportunity to parties to lead evidence has directed for recording the name of the petitioners over the plot in question as bhumidhar with transferable rights. There is also no dispute about the fact that in appeal the order of Consolidation Officer has been set aside and matter has been remanded back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the title dispute afresh. There is also no dispute about the fact that the revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed as not maintainable. 9. Perusal of the order of Consolidation Officer fully demonstrates that the jurisdiction under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has been properly exercised by the Consolidation Officer by framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence in the matter. Consolidation Officer has recorded finding of fact for recording the name of the petitioners over the plot in question. The record also demonstrates that earlier also the Consolidation Officer has exercised the jurisdiction in favour of petitioners but in revision the order was set aside and the matter was remitted back before the Consolidation Officer, as such, repeated remand order passed by the consolidation authorities cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in 2022 (155) RD 294, Nadakerappa since deceased by L.R.s and others versus Pillamma since deceased by L.R.s. and others has held that the order of remand should not be passed in casual manner. Paragraph no.25 of the judgement 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." 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order dated 16.9.2010 passed by respondent no.1 / Deputy Director of Consolidation and order dated 25.9.2007 passed by respondent no.2/ Settlement Officer of Consolidation are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. 12. The writ petition stands allowed in part and matter is remitted back before respondent no.2/ Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide all the aforementioned three appeals afresh on merit in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all the parties, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. 13. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Rameez Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad