Court No. - 44
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1032 of 2019 Petitioner :- Alimullah Warsi Respondent :- The District Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheo Shankar Tripathi,Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amulya Ratan Srivastava,Bakhteyar Yusuf
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bakhteyar Yusuf, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
The present writ petition has been challenged the order dated 12.04.2019 passed by Respondent No. 1- District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Kushinagar whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 65 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was rejected.
It reflects from the record that the petitioner challenged the order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kushinagar before this Court in Writ- B No. 169 of 2019 (Alimullah Warsi Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others) which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2019 and the matter was remitted back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision himself after considering the rival contentions and also the evidence that may be available on record. It is further directed by this Court that this exercised be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the first respondent.
Subsequently, an application was filed for transferring/recalling the case from the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that the petitioner has no hope to get justice from the present Deputy Director of Consolidation. The application filed by the petitioner under Rule 65 was rejected vide impugned order.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the interest of justice requires that case which should be transferred/recalled from the present Deputy Director of Consolidation which respondent No. 1 has committed illegality while dismissing his application.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that no ground for interference has been made out as Collector, Kushinagar while passing the impugned order has recorded sufficient reason and even this Court has remitted the matter with the direction that the same Deputy Director of Consolidation should decided the matter.
I have considered the rival submissions as raised by the parties and perused the record.
This Court passed the order dated 24.01.2019 and remitted the matter back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision himself after considering the rival submission. In view of the specific direction of this Court, the petitioner should abate the same and cannot move the application for transfer/recall from the present Deputy Director of Consolidation.
The impugned order has rightly been passed by the Collector, Kushinagar.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the order, as the revision filed by the respondents has to be decide. In view of the order passed by this Court dated 24.01.2019 in Writ- B No. 169 of 2019 (Alimullah Warsi Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others).
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the Case of Gaya Ram Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation, Lucknow & Ors. Reported in 2011
(113) RD 517, the paragraph no. 6 is quoted as under:-
"Without accepting the allegations levelled against the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and without condemning or rejecting the order passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, the Court feels that, that in the larger interest of justice because, it should not only be done, it should also appear to have been done, as a rare case, the Joint Director of Consolidation is directed to give it a fresh thought and transfer the matter to some other Settlement Officer within his jurisdiction."
In the present case, since the proceeding with the case as per the direction passed by this Court dated 24.1.2019 in Writ- B No. 169 of 2019 (Alimullah Warsi Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others) and, therefore, the present case law cited from the side of the petitioner is not applicable in the present case.
In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Sweety