Court No. - 17 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4517 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 23.3.2018 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Auraiya, whereby the application for interim relief has been rejected as well as a further direction to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide Revision No. 53 of 2016, within a stipulated period of time.
It is apparent from the record that grandfather of the petitioner executed a will deed in his favour on 11.11.1993 and on its basis, the name of the petitioner was mutated under section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), vide order dated 2.6.2003. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by respondent no. 2 which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer to decide it afresh vide order dated 17.4.2013. Thereafter the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 7.4.2014 rejected the application filed by the petitioner under section 12 of the Act and recorded the name of respondent no. 2 on the basis of succession. Against the order dated 7.4.2014, petitioner filed appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 29.2.2016 and the matter was again remanded to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the matter on merits afresh after framing issues and affording opportunities to the parties concerned. Against the order dated 29.2.2016, the respondent no. 2 preferred a revision which is still pending. In the said revision, an application was moved by the petitioner on 19.2.2018 for interim relief on the ground that respondent is trying to alienate the disputed property. The said application has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 23.3.2018, recording a finding that the order impugned in the revision is an interlocutory order and there is no provision under the Act to restrain the respondent from alienating the property.
The order impugned is purely an interlocutory order and the principle of Lis Pendens applies in the facts of the present case. Further, the petitioner has remedy in case the disputed property is transferred by respondent no. 2. In view thereof, since the order impugned is purely an interlocutory order, no ground is made out for interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
However, considering the facts and circumstances, a direction is issued upon the respondent no. 1- Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide Revision No. 53 of 2016, in accordance with law expeditiously within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
With the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 SNT/