Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3629 of 2018 Petitioner :- Altaf And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandra Shekhar Sharma,Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
Sri Chandra Shekhar Sharma, learned Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5 contends that the petitioners have no locus as they were not party in the proceedings before the consolidation authorities. He has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sukhjinder Jeet Kaur and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2003 (2) AWC 943, wherein the Court has relied upon an unreported judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36233 of 1991 (Gaon Sabha through its Pradhan and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti and another), wherein the Court has ruled as under:
"11. The aforesaid statutory provision came up for interpretation before this Court in Writ Petition No. 36233 of 1991, Gaon Sabha through its Pradhan and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti and Anr., decided on 3.12.2O02. This Court after referring to the provisions of Section 11, held as under;
"A reading of the aforesaid statutory provision reveals that an appeal can be filed only by a party to the proceedings. It is well-settled in law that right of appeal, revision or review are the statutory rights. They are conferred by the statutes and unless conferred, they can not be availed of by any person and no authority can entertain an appeal, revision or review unless the said authority is authorized by the statute to entertain the same. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was, thus, right in holding that the aforesaid petitioners were not the party to the proceedings and they had no right to file an appeal. The appeal filed by them was legally not maintainable."
Be that as it may the matter has been remitted back to the Consolidation Officer. Having due regard to the facts of the case, I am of the view that no interference is called for as the Deputy Director, Consolidation has not recorded any finding with regard to the rights of parties and has remitted back the matter to the C.O. only on the ground that on the alleged compromise the contesting respondents had not signed and he has denied his signatures.
In view of above, writ petition lacks merit, however, since the respondents had filed restoration application after fifteen years, a direction is issued to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a year.
The learned counsel appearing for both the parties had agreed that the parties shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment before the Consolidation Officer. While granting adjournment the Consolidation Officer shall pay regard to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast Pvt. Ltd and others, (2011) 9 SCC 678, and Noor Mohammed v. Jethnand, (2013) 5 SCC 202, wherein the Supreme Court has laid down the law that not more than three adournments should be granted to a party.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Digamber