High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2211 of 2022 Petitioner :- Dev Kumar Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Pathak, Awadhesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Durga Shanker Shukla, Mahesh Dwivedi, Preeti Tripathi,Santosh Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Legal Reasoning
Shri Saroj Kumar Yadav, learned Advocate, has filed his memo of appearance on behalf of private respondents no. 2 to 5, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents no. 2 to 5, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents no. 1 & 11 and perused the record. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the order proposed to be passed here-under, this Court proceeds to finally decide the matter at the admission stage, with the consent of the counsel for the parties present, without putting notice to the remaining private respondent nos. 6 to 10 with liberty to them to move a recall application, in case any fact in the petition is found incorrect. The petitioner-Dev Kumar has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.04.2022 (Annexure-1) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti (in brevity 'DDC') (respondent no. 1) in revision under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act) filed on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 5 assailing the order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'SOC) in Appeal No.475.
Decision
Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition reveals that the instant writ petition relates to Plot no. 145, Khata No. 97, situates in Village Vikramjot. In the basic consolidation record, land in question was recorded in the name of Suryalal, Satya Narain and Radhey Shyam, sons of Sitaram, however, name of Durupatta, w/o. Rudra is shown in possession under Class 9. At the time of investigation (Partal), Shyam Sunder (predecessor in interest of respondents no. 2 to 5) was shown to be in possession over the property in question who has claimed his right and title on the basis of unregistered will deed dated 14.06.1979 said to have been executed by Durupatta. Present petitioner-Dev Kumar has filed objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act claiming his right and title over the property in question on the basis of registered sale deed dated 12.06.2000, said to have been executed by the recorded tenure holders namely Suryalal, Satya Narain and Radhey Shyamsons of Sitaram. It appears that several other objections were also filed with respect to other plots including plot in question. The Consolidation Officer, by its common order dated 11.02.2014, has decided the matter without addressing to the objection filed on behalf of the present petitioner. Having been aggrieved against the order of the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner has preferred appeal which was allowed and remanded before the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the SOC. Having been aggrieved against the remand order, the contesting respondents have preferred revision. It appears that three other revisions were also preferred before the DDC who has decided all the four revisions by its common order dated 18.04.2022. The revision preferred on behalf of the contesting respondents against the order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the SOC was allowed and the order of the SOC was quahsed. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the DDC, present petition has been filed by the petitioner-Dev Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the SOC has rightly remitted the matter before the Consolidation Officer considering the fact that the objection filed on behalf of the petitioner has not been dealt with by the Consolidation Officer and the case of the petitioner has not been adverted to. The DDC in quashing the order of the SOC has miserably failed to observe that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer is an ex parte order against the petitioner sans opportunity of hearing accorded to him. The DDC has decided the revision in a very cursory manner without adverting to the case of the petitioner. It is next submitted that the order passed by the DDC in revision, arising out of order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the SOC in Appeal No. 475, is illegal, unwarranted and tainted with irregularities, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has contended that the name of the vendors of the petitioner was illegally recorded in the main column without any authority of law and they have no legal right over the property in question. Durupatta had perfected her right over the property in question on the basis of long possession who name was recorded under Class 9. He has further contended that will dated 14.06.1979, executed by Durupatta in favour of Shyam Sunder, was fully proved by the marginal witnesses, therefore, the Consolidation Officer has rightly decided the matter recognizing the right and title of Shyam Sunder over the property in question. It is also contended that once the Suryalal and others (vendors of the petitioner) have no valid right over the property in question, the present petitioner, being a vendee, cannot claim better right than what was possessed by his vendors. It is next contended that the DDC has rightly decided the revision filed on behalf of the contesting respondents, vide its order dated 18.04.2022, which suffers with no illegality or perversity, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it reveals that instant writ petition is confined only to Plot no. 145, Khata No. 97 situates in Village Vikramjot. The SOC has allowed the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner only with respect to property in question i.e. Plot No. 145, Khata No. 97 situates in Village Vikramjot, in which respect present petitioner is claiming his right and title on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 12.06.2000 said to have been executed by Suryalal, Satya Narain and Radhey Shyam sons of Sitaram. In the basic year entry, name of vendors of the petitioner was recorded in the main column and the name of Durupatta was recorded in remark column under Class 9. At the time of field to filed investigation (Partal), Shyam Sunder was found in possession over the property in question. Against the basic year entry, present petitioner has filed objection on the basis of sale deed dated 12.06.2000. The Consolidation Officer has formulated as many as nine issues in deciding the case out of which issue nos. 5, 6 & 7 were related to plot no.145 but, unfortunately, neither he has whispered with respect to the objection filed by the petitioner nor made any issue qua the claim of the petitioner over plot no. 145 on the basis of the sale deed dated 12.06.2000 executed by the recorded tenure holders. In allowing the appeal, the SOC has given a categorical finding, discussing several dates of order-sheet that no proper opportunity of hearing has been accorded to the petitioner in deciding the matter. Finding returned by the SOC qua violation of natural justice and fair play has not been reversed by the DDC, while allowing the revision filed on behalf of the contesting respondents, in its order dated 18.04.2022. Moreover, the DDC has made one paragraph observations in quashing the order passed by the SOC. Perusal of the order dated 18.04.2022 reveals that no fair trial has been given to the case of the petitioner and the revision has been decided only on the basis of the submissions made by counsel for the revisionist. It appears that the DDC has decided the revision without considering the respective cases of the parties. He has made a sweeping remark that the SOC should avoid in unnecessary remitting the matter before the court below, as per instructions issued by the Government and the dictum of the high Court, which promotes protraction of litigation. The DDC has upheld the order, passed by the Consolidation Officer valid without assigning any cogent reason. Finding of fact returned by the SOC, qua lack of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has not appropriately been dealt with by the DDC who has decided the revision in a very cursory manner without applying his judicious mind. I find substance in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the order under challenge. The DDC has committed error in quashing the order passed by the SOC by which an opportunity of fair trial has been afforded to the petitioner who was illegally prevented from the same at the stage of Consolidation Officer. The petitioner is adversely affected person owing to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer who has decided the matter, in violation of canon of natural justice and fair play, without considering the case of the petitioner and without affording him opportunity of hearing, though he had filed objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. Order passed by the DDC in revision preferred on behalf of the contesting respondents assailing the order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the SOC, in Appeal No. 475 filed on behalf of the present petition, deserves to be quashed. Resultantly, instant writ petition succeeded and is allowed. Order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the DDC in revision filed on behalf of the contesting respondents, assailing the order dated 14.05.2015 of the SOC passed in Appeal No. 475, with respect to the No. 145, Khata No. 97 situates in Village Vikramjot, is hereby quashed and the order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the SOC in Appeal No. 475 is hereby affirmed. Proceeding before the Consolidation Officer, in light of the order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the SOC, is hereby restored to the file and the parties are relegated before the Consolidation Officer to get the matter decided de novo. It is expected that the matter shall be decided, strictly in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after affording due and proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Consolidation Officer on 20.09.2022. Order Date :- 8.9.2022 VR Digitally signed by VIBHA RATAN Date: 2022.09.13 11:18:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad