Case called out in the revised list. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
Shri Ram Dhani Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 18 is present. He has filed an application no. 253628 with the prayer that the writ petition preferred by the petitioners not accompanied by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) dated 22.2.2000 which is impugned in the writ petition, that the writ petition is directed against an order of remand and hence it is not maintainable. It has further been averred that the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (SOC) was an order of remand and the revision filed against such an order of remand was also not maintainable and, therefore, the same has been rightly dismissed by the impugned order.
I have examined the record. The report of the stamp reporter dated 6.3.2000 is only to the effect that annexure 6 is wanting a typed copy. This would necessarily indicate that the certified copy of the order was annexed with the writ petition. Moreover, the folio which was used to apply for the certified copy is annexed with the writ petition and is available on record.
Under the circumstances, it is quite possible that the order of the DDC which is attached to the folio might have become detached from the paper book and, therefore, is not available on record. The folio mentions that the photostat of the order dated 22.2.2000 is appended thereto. Even otherwise the petition was entertained by the order dated 8.3.2010 when the parties was granted time to file counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. It can therefore be safely assumed that the impugned order was perused by the Court prior to the order being passed on writ petition itself.
In view of the above, I am not inclined to dismiss this writ petition on the ground that the copy of the impugned order has been filed along with it. Even otherwise the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision itself being directed against the order of remand was not maintainable as also the writ petition is also not maintainable as it is also directed against an order of remand, is not sustainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision reported in 1996 Vol 87 RD Page 104 Ajab Singh vs. Joint Director of Consolidation wherein it has been held that an order of remand passed by the SOC is an interlocutory order and, therefore, not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction before the DDC under Section 48 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent and his reliance upon the judgment noticed above is misconceived. This Court in the judgment reported in 2010 (28) LCD 1396 Deena Nath & Others vs. DDC has held that an order or remand passed by the SOC is not an interlocutory order and, therefore, revisable. This decision has been rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and is, therefore, binding upon me.
In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition is not maintainable as the order impugned before the DDC was an interlocutory order and, therefore, rightly dismissed is not liable to be sustained. Being contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court supra.
In view of the above, the application filed by the respondent no. 18 to dismiss the writ petition as not maintainable, is rejected.
Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the affidavit which have been filed along with the writ petition is stated to be of Moti son of Bheku. His submission is that Moti has not signed the affidavit is correct. The signature on the affidavit as also on the writ petition and its annexures is are that of Baccha Lal, who from the array of the parties appears to the petitioner no. 1 in the writ petition.
This fact that Moti, alleged deponent has not signed the affidavit renders the same is defective. However, in my considered opinion this defect can be cured and, therefore, it is directed that this order be brought to the notice to the Court at the time of hearing of the petition.
Order Date :- 15.5.2014 Priyanka