High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 51 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2390 of 2022 Petitioner :- Pancham And 4 Others Respondent :- Additional Collector And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Triveni Shanker,Ajay Shankar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 12. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 16.7.2022 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation remitting the matter before the Consolidation OfÏcer to decide the case afresh after giving due and proper opportunity of hearing
Facts
to the parties concerned. Record reveals that Amarnath and others (contesting respondents) are the recorded tenure holders in the basic consolidation record. Petitioners are claiming their right and title over the property in question on the basis of adverse possession under Class 9 entry. Petitioners have filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity U.P. C.H. Act) claiming their bhoomidhari right over the land in question on the ground that they have perfected their rights and title on the basis of adverse possession. The case of the petitioners was contested by contesting respondents on the ground that they are recorded tenure holders and the Class 9 entry in favour of the petitioners are not in accordance with law and they are not in the adverse possession over the property in question. During pendency of the objection, parties are allegedly entered into compromise dated 8.9.2003. Consolidation OfÏcer, vide order dated 11.6.2007, has dismissed the objection of the petitioners ignoring the compromise dated 8.9.2003. Settlement OfÏcer of Consolidation, on appeal being filed on behalf of the petitioners, has remanded the matter vide order dated 8.1.2015, to decide it afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. In pursuance of the remand order, Consolidation OfÏcer has passed fresh orders on 30.3.2017 negating the claim of the petitioners on the basis of Class 9 entry, Having been aggrieved against the order passed by the Consolidation OfÏcer, petitioners have preferred an appeal which was allowed, vide order dated 15.3.2018, considering the compromise dated 8.9.2003 and judgement dated 27.3.1982 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of the contesting respondents, has allowed the revision and relegated the parties before the Consolidation OfÏcer to decide the matter afresh after framing issues and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Petitioners being aggrieved against the remand order dated 16.7.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation have filed the instant writ petition. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that once the compromise is accepted by the Settlement OfÏcer of Consolidation, there was no occasion to remand the matter by ignoring said compromise. It is further submitted that the judgement dated 27.3.1982 passed by the Additional Commissioner in appeal arising out of suit under section 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms, Act 1950 has illegally been ignored. It is further submitted that giving fresh opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence is not sustainable in the eye of law, therefore, impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be quashed. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of petitioners and supported the remand order under challenge.
Legal Reasoning
Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it reveals that claim of the petitioners on the basis of adverse possession under Class 9 entry has been negated by the Consolidation OfÏcer. Compromise dated 8.9.2003, allegedly took place between the parties, has been ignored by the Consolidation OfÏcer on the ground that the compromise is not in consonance with the subject matter of the objection filed by the petitioners The Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered this aspect of the matter which has illegally been ignored by the Settlement OfÏcer of Consolidation. While remitting the matter before the Consolidation OfÏcer, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has returned categorical finding that on the basis of the compromise case cannot be decided with respect to those plots which are not the subject matter of lis. It is apposite to mention that the contesting respondents are denying the genuineness of the alleged agreement took place between the parties. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has further observed that the courts subordinate have not properly adjudicated the matter in the light of the direction issued by Settlement OfÏcer of Consolidation in its order dated 8.1.2015. So far as ignorance of order dated 27.3.1982 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi in appeal arising out of suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A.&L.R. Act is concerned, it is admitted that the suit was ultimately abated due to intervention of the consolidation operation, therefore, in the light of the provisions as enunciated under section 5 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, right and title of the parties qua land in question are required to be adjudicated upon afresh before the consolidation courts. In my considered opinion, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not committed any error in remitting the matter before the Consolidation OfÏcer so that right and title of the parties over the property in question could properly be adjudicated upon by the court competent. Parties have full opportunity to adduce their respective evidences in support of their respective cases. Nothing has been decided finally with respect to right and title of the parties over the property in question. So far as validity of the compromise dated 8.9.2003 is concerned, opportunity is still open for the parties to raise their respective objections with respect to its genuineness before the consolidation ofÏcer. In this conspectus above, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate as to how petitioners are prejudiced, or is their likelihood of causing any miscarriage of justice to them, in pursuance of the remand order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. There is no illegality, perversity, irregularity or infirmity in the order under challenge as to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extra- ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Resultantly, instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoids of merits, is dismissed.
Decision
There is no order as to costs. However, considering the aforesaid facts, it would be appropriate to issue, a direction to the Consolidation OfÏcer concerned, before whom the matter has been remitted in pursuance of the order dated 16.7.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, to decide the matter in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 13.10.2022 Puspendra Digitally signed by PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH Date: 2022.10.19 11:26:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad