Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 639 of 2021 Petitioner :- Anwar Ahmad And 3 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Saxena,Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Suresh C. Dwivedi
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ravi Prakash Pandey holding brief of Shri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi for respondent no. 4 and Shri Manu Saxena, counsel for respondent no.5.
Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners is taken on record.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 9.9.2010, 17.10.2012, 28.1.2016 and 20.9.2017 passed by the consolidation authorities.
The facts of the case are that initially an order dated 12.7.2004 was passed by the Consolidation Officer allowing the objections of the petitioners and accepting their claim over the disputed plots which, in the basic year records were entered in the name of Ram Leela Maidan, Mandi and Kabristaan.
Subsequently, an appeal was filed against the order of Consolidation Officer which was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the matter was remanded back to the Consolation Officer to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.
Against the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the petitioners filed a revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Consequently, the matter continued before the Consolidation Officer. The petitioners did not appear on the date fixed for hearing in the case and by order dated 9.9.2010, the Consolation Officer dismissed the objections of the petitioners for non prosecution. The petitioners filed a recall application for recall of the order dated 9.9.2010 but the same was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 17.10.2012. The petitioners filed an appeal against the order dated 17.10.2012 but the same was rejected by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 28.1.2016. The petitioners filed a revision against the order of the subordinate consolidation authorities but the same was rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation., Bulandshahr that is revisional court vide its order dated 20.9.2017. The said orders have been challenged in the present writ petition.
The prayer of the petitioners for restoring the case before the Consolidation Officer has been rejected on the ground that the petitioners had knowledge of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer as they have participated in the appeal filed against the order dated 12.7.2004 whereby the Consolidation Officer had allowed their objections and had also filed a revision against the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.
It is the admitted case of the petitioners that they had appeared before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the appeal filed against the order dated 12.7.2004 and the revision was also filed by them against the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.
In the circumstances, the petitioners had notice of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer had committed no illegality in rejecting the recall application of the petitioners and the said order has been rightly upheld by the appellate and the revisional courts.
Apart from the aforesaid, the writ petition has been filed almost three and a half years after the final orders passed by the consolidation authorities.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed explaining the laches in filing the writ petition. In the supplementary affidavit, the petitioners have pleaded financial hardship as an excuse for the delay in filing the writ petition. The Court does not find satisfactory the explanation for the laches given in the supplementary affidavit.
In view of the aforesaid, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 IB