Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 41179 of 2013 Petitioner :- Amar Nath Respondent :- D.D.C. And 47 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jeevan Prakash Sharma,Akhilesh Chandra Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N.Singh,Puran Nath Shukla,Sarita Dwivedi
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Sri Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, the counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.N. Shukla, the counsel for the contesting respondent nos. 4 to 8 in the present case.
The dispute between the parties in the present writ petition relates to Khata No. 49 and Plot No. 474 included in the aforesaid khata. The total area of Plot No. 474 is 1.850 hectares out of which 0.860 hectares was chucked out and 0.990 was within the consolidation operations. During the consolidation operations in the village, a dispute arose between the parties and different tenure holders regarding succession, determination of share and appropriate sub-division of different plots in Khata No. 26, 28, 29 and 49 and the said dispute was referred by the Assistant Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.C.O.') to the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.'). Consequently, Case No. 540/901 under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') was registered before the C.O., Sadar, District Varanasi. The petitioner was one of the parties in the aforesaid case which was titled as Chhedi Vs. Amar Nath. While the said case was still pending before the C.O., Case No. 4588 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 was registered at the instance of one Dhaneshari Devi who was also a co-tenure holder of the disputed khata. The respondent no. 8 is the vendee of Dhaneshari Devi. In the aforesaid Case No. 4588, a compromise application was filed by certain tenure holders on 26.3.1997 allegedly agreeing for division of Plot No. 474/1 in accordance with the mode given in the said compromise. The details of the contents of the said compromise are not relevant for a decision of the writ petition. It is sufficient to state that in the compromise dated 26.3.1997, it was recorded that respondent nos. 4 to 7 shall be allotted 0.230 hectares in the said plot from the portion which had been chucked out while the petitioner and his brothers Surya Bali and Chandra Bali, i.e., respondent nos. 47 and 48 shall be allotted 0.460 hectares in the plot from the portion which was within the consolidation operations. The C.O. vide his order dated 12.5.1998 accepted the compromise and decided Case No. 4588 in terms of the compromise. On 5.12.2000, the respondent nos. 4 to 7 filed a recall application denying the signatures on the compromise and also stated that they were not present when the compromise was being allegedly verified by the C.O. The said recall application was allowed by the C.O. vide his order dated 14.8.2002, the order dated 12.5.1998 was recalled and Case No. 4588 was posted for re-hearing. From a reading of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), it appears that the said Case No. 4588 was subsequently re-numbered as Case No. 882. In the meantime, the C.O. vide his order dated 7.2.2004 decided Case No. 540/901 determining the share of the parties in Khata Nos. 26, 28, 29 and 49. The share of the tenure holders in Khata Nos. 26, 28 and 29 was determined on the basis of certain previous decrees passed by the revenue courts in proceedings registered under Section 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the share of the parties in Khata No. 49 was also determined accordingly. The share of Dhaneshari Devi in Khata No. 49 was determined as 1/16 and the C.O. held that respondent no. 4 to 7 had 1/32 share each in the disputed khata. Against the order dated 7.2.2004 passed by the C.O., the respondent nos. 8, 9 and 46 filed Appeal Nos. 1020/1500 and 1528/502 which were allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') vide his judgment and order dated 20.4.2006 and the matter was remanded back to the C.O. to pass fresh orders in Case No. 540/901. The petitioner filed a recall application praying for recall of the order dated 20.4.2006. Through his order dated 4.7.2006, the S.O.C., Varanasi recalled his previous order dated 20.4.2006 and disposed of Appeal Nos. 1020/1500 and 1528/502 by modifying the order dated 7.2.2004 passed by the C.O. so far as it concerned Khata No. 49. Through his order dated 4.7.2006, the S.O.C. held that respondent no. 8 as the vendee of Dhaneshari Devi had 1/16 share in Khata No. 49 and also held that respondent nos. 4 to 7 had 1/32 share each in Khata No. 49. In his aforesaid order dated 4.7.2006, the S.O.C. also determined the area to be given to respondent nos. 4 to 7 in the portion of Plot No. 474 that was chucked out and also in the portion that was included in consolidation. As a consequence of the order dated 4.7.2006 passed by the S.O.C., the C.O. vide his order dated 18.12.2006 made certain corrections in order dated 7.2.2004 regarding partition of Khata No. 49. The details of the order dated 18.12.2006 are not relevant for the present writ petition and are, therefore, not being referred in the present order. After the order dated 4.7.2006, the C.O. vide his order dated 30.8.2006 dismissed Case No. 4588/882 pending before him on the ground that the dispute between the parties had been finalized vide order dated 4.7.2006 passed by the S.O.C. and, therefore, Case No. 4588/882 was not maintainable. It appears that as a result of the order dated 4.7.2006 passed by the S.O.C., reference proceedings were registered in which the petitioner filed his objections which are still pending. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed Revision Nos. 819 and 984 challenging the orders dated 4.7.2006 passed by the S.O.C. in Appeal Nos. 1020/1500 and 1528/502 and orders dated 14.8.2002 and 30.8.2006 passed by the C.O. in Case No. 4588/882. The said revisions were filed in 2010 and 2011, respectively and have been dismissed by the D.D.C. on grounds of delay and also on merits vide his order dated 21.11.2011. The order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the D.D.C. has been challenged in the present writ petition.
It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the delay in filing Revision Nos. 819 and 984 had been properly explained by the petitioner and the revisional court has wrongly dismissed the said revisions on grounds of delay. It was argued that from the records, it was evident that the petitioner had no knowledge of the orders dated 14.8.2002 and 30.8.2006 passed by the C.O. in Case No. 4588/882 and, therefore, the delay in filing the revisions by the petitioner deserved to be condoned and the D.D.C. had erred in dismissing the aforesaid revisions on grounds of delay. It was argued that the respondent nos. 4 to 8 had signed the compromise which was accepted by the C.O. vide his order dated 12.5.1998 and, therefore, had no right to file the recall application and for the aforesaid reason, the orders dated 14.8.2002 and 30.8.2006 passed by the C.O. were contrary to law. It was further argued that the order dated 4.7.2006 passed by the S.O.C. was also not in the knowledge of the petitioner and, therefore, the delay in filing the revision against the order dated 4.7.2006 also deserved to be condoned and the D.D.C. had erred in dismissing the aforesaid revision on grounds of delay. It was argued that the order dated 4.7.2006 passed by the S.O.C. was without jurisdiction as the parties had agreed to the mode of partition and allotment of shares in Khata No. 49 through a compromise filed in Case No. 4588/882 which was according to the possession of the parties and no further arrangement between the parties could have been made by the S.O.C. It was argued that in the reference proceedings the consolidation authorities, in the garb of the order dated 4.7.2006, were affecting the title of the petitioner over Chak No. 7 which cannot be permitted and which is not a consequence of the order dated 4.7.2006. It was argued that for the aforesaid reason, Revision Nos. 819 and 984 deserved to be allowed and the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the D.D.C. is liable to be set-aside.
Rebutting the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the respondents has supported the orders dated 14.8.2002 and 30.8.2006 passed by the C.O. as well as the order dated 4.7.2006 and 21.11.2011 passed by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C., respectively. It was argued by the counsel for the respondents that the answering respondents had not signed the compromise allegedly filed in Case No. 4588/882 and, therefore, the order dated 12.5.1998 was rightly recalled by the C.O. vide his order dated 14.8.2002. It was argued that arrangement regarding Plot No. 474 and the area to be allotted to the answering respondents in Plot No. 474 in the portion's which were chucked out from and also included in consolidation had been finally decided by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 4.7.2006 and, therefore, Case No. 4588/882 was rightly dismissed by the C.O. vide his order dated 30.8.2006 as the said case had become infructuous because of the order dated 4.7.2006. It was argued by the counsel for the respondents that the order dated 4.7.2006 was passed on the basis of possession of the parties as found by the Lekhpal and, therefore, required no interference by this Court. It was further argued that the petitioner had knowledge of the orders dated 14.8.2002 and 30.8.2006 passed by the C.O. and the order dated 4.7.2006 passed by the S.O.C. and, therefore, Revision Nos. 819 and 984 which were filed in 2010 and 2011 were highly belated and rightly dismissed by the D.D.C. on grounds of delay as well as because the said revisions had no merits. It was argued that for the aforesaid reason, the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and also perused the records.
It is evident from a reading of the impugned order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the D.D.C. that Case No. 540/901 was registered under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 on a reference made by the A.C.O. to decide the disputes in relation to Khata Nos. 26, 28, 29 and 49. While the issue relating to the disputes in Khata No. 49 was pending before the C.O., Case No. 4588/882 was registered at the instance of Dhaneshari Devi who was the vendor of respondent nos. 8. Any dispute regarding the title, share or possession of the parties in the plots included in Khata No. 49 was to be decided in Case No. 540/901 registered before the C.O. In view of the aforesaid, Case No. 4588/882 could not have been registered before the C.O. and any order passed by the C.O. affecting the rights of the parties in Khata No. 49 was without jurisdiction. For the aforesaid reason, the order dated 12.5.1998 passed by the C.O. was without jurisdiction. Case No. 540/901 was decided by the C.O. vide his order dated 7.2.2004. The order dated 7.2.2004 passed by the C.O. was modified by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 4.7.2006 whereby the S.O.C. decided the share of the parties in Khata No. 49 and also determined the areas to be allotted to respondent nos. 4 to 7 in the portion of Plot No. 474 which were chucked out and also included in the consolidation operations. The dispute between the parties in relation to Khata No. 49, as would be evident from a careful perusal of the records and the different orders passed by the consolidation authorities, relates to the share of the tenure holders in Khata No. 49 and their possession over the different sub-divisions of Plot No. 474. The said dispute was decided by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 4.7.2006. Thus, the C.O. vide his order dated 30.8.2006 rightly dismissed Case No. 4588/882 as the said case had become infructuous. Apart from the aforesaid, as held earlier, the order dated 12.5.1998 passed by the C.O. in Case No. 4588/882 was also without jurisdiction as the said case was not maintainable because Case No. 540/901 instituted earlier in relation to Khata No. 49 was already pending before the C.O. The revision filed against the orders dated 14.8.2002 and 30.8.2006 was futile and not maintainable and was rightly dismissed by the D.D.C. It is also evident from a reading of the order dated 20.4.2006 passed by the S.O.C. in Appeal Nos. 1020/1500 and 1528/502 that in the said order the S.O.C. has referred to the pendency of Case No. 882. The petitioner had filed a recall application for recall of the order dated 20.4.2006 passed by the S.O.C. Obviously, while filing the recall application for recall of the order dated 20.4.2006 passed by the S.O.C., the petitioner had knowledge of the contents of the order dated 20.4.2006 and thus, also had knowledge of the pendency of Case No. 882 and, therefore, it cannot be believed that the petitioner had no knowledge of the order dated 14.8.2002 recalling the order dated 12.5.1998. The petitioner got knowledge of the order dated 14.8.2002 at least on the date he filed the recall application for recall of the order dated 20.4.2006 passed by the S.O.C. In view of the aforesaid, the revision filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 14.8.2002 and 30.8.2006 passed by the C.O. were highly belated and the D.D.C. vide his order dated 21.11.2011 rightly refused to condone the delay in filing the revision.
The order dated 4.7.2006 passed by the S.O.C. was passed on the recall application filed by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 20.4.2006. It cannot believed that the petitioner had no knowledge of the order dated 4.7.2006. There is no illegality in the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the D.D.C. refusing to condone the delay in filing the revision against the order dated 4.7.2006 passed by the S.O.C.
Apart from the aforesaid, a reading of the order dated 4.7.2006 passed by the S.O.C. shows that the said order has been passed by the S.O.C. after considering the report dated 17.7.2000 submitted by the Lekhpal reporting the possession of the parties on Plot No. 474. In his order dated 4.7.2006, the S.O.C. has recorded that the parties had no serious objections to the report of the Lekhpal. The said recital in the order dated 4.7.2006 passed by the S.O.C. has not been controverted by the petitioner in the memorandum of revision filed before the D.D.C. challenging the order dated 4.7.2006 and the correctness of the recital has also not been challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is not the case of the petitioner that the arrangements made by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 4.7.2006 are not according to the report of the Lekhpal or that the report dated 17.7.2000 submitted by the Lekhpal did not correctly depict the possession of the parties over Plot No. 474. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by order dated 4.7.2006 and the revisions against the order dated 4.7.2006 filed by the petitioner were rightly dismissed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 21.11.2011.
So far as the contention of the petitioner that the order dated 4.7.2006 passed by the S.O.C. does not decide the title of Chak No. 7 which is being disturbed in the reference proceedings as as consequence of the order dated 4.7.2006, is concerned, the petitioner can raise the aforesaid objections in the reference proceedings and the said objections do not affect the legality of the order dated 4.7.2006 passed by the S.O.C. or the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the D.D.C. The said objections relate to interpretation of the order dated 4.7.2006 and shall be decided by the appropriate authority in the reference proceedings.
For all the aforesaid reasons, there is no illegality in the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the D.D.C. so as to occasion interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Satyam