Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3686 of 2018 Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan And Another Respondent :- Additional District Magistrate (Finance And Revenue)/Dy. Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Nand Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Maharajganj, the first respondent, dated 04th August, 2017 and 03rd November, 2017. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the petitioners' revision filed under Section 48(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, "the Act") on the ground that the order dated 22nd January, 2016 of the Settlement Officer Consolidation is an interlocutory order, therefore, revision is not maintainable.
Briefly stated the facts are that on 19th December, 1990 the Consolidation Officer has decided an objection under Section 9A(2) of the Act and directed to record the name of one Kalawati, daughter of Trilok, and Dulare & Chandra Bhan as co-sharers in the land in dispute. The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 19th December, 1990 preferred an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act before the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Pharenda, District Maharajganj.
The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 31st January, 1998 set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 19th December, 1990 and remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer to decide afresh after furnishing opportunity to both the parties. Kalawati aggrieved by the said order moved a recall application for recalling the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 31st January, 1998 on the ground that the said order was an exparte order.
During the pendency of the recall application Kalawati died and the fourth respondent moved an application for his substitution in the pending appeal. The petitioners opposed the said application on the ground that Kalawati has two legal heirs: the fourth respondent and Km. Urmila, her daughter.
The grievance of the petitioners was that in the substitution application daughter of Kalawati, namely, Km. Urmila did not join and it was moved only on behalf of the fourth respondent. Therefore, the petitioners moved an objection against the said substitution application. On 22nd January, 2016 the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the substitution application dated 07th November, 2014 filed by the fourth respondent. Against the said order allowing the substitution application the petitioners preferred a revision before the first respondent. The revision has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 04th August, 2017 inter alia on the ground that it was not maintainable against an interlocutory order. Thereafter the petitioners filed a recall application to recall the order dated 04th August, 2017 which has also been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 03rd November, 2017.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
Indisputably, Kalawati, who was co-sharer, died during the pendency of her recall application. The fourth respondent is son of late Kalawati and the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation has allowed his substitution application and the matter is pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who will consider the matter on merit. I find that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not suffer from any illegality. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken the view that the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation is an interlocutory order. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy the Court by citing any judgment or provision of law that the said order is not an interlocutory order.
Be that as it may, the matter is pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. For the reasons stated above, no interference is called for in the impugned orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the concerned Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide the appeal in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight months. He will grant adjournment to the parties only after imposing cost, which shall not be less than Rs.200/-.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 SKT/-