Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3947 of 2018 Petitioner :- Gulab Singh Respondent :- The Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Narain Srivastva Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Aditya,Manu Singh
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 12th February, 2018 passed by respondent no. 1, 31st August, 2016 passed by respondent no. 2 and 30th November, 1999 and 30th January, 2003 passed by respondent no. 3.
Brief facts of the case are that contesting respondent nos. 4 and 5 are real brothers of the petitioner. After the death of their father Sri Brijlal, the petitioner and his brothers respondent nos.
4 and 5 became co-sharer of the holding. The Assistant Consolidation Officer had proposed the chak according to their shares. The petitioner filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer on 25th October, 1997. He has also moved an application in 2002 before the Consolidation Officer, Hathras. His grievance was in respect of valuation of the property of Plot No. 872, which was valued at the rate of 60 paisa in place of 20 paisa. A copy of his objection is on the record as annexure-5 to the writ petition. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of the petitioner vide order dated 30th November, 1999. His application was also rejected vide order dated 30th January, 2003.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has also been dismissed. The petitioner preferred a revision against the said order. The revision of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 12th February, 2018.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the view taken by the first respondent regarding the applicability of Section 52 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, the "Act") is not correct.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
The revisional Court has taken the view that in respect of the same property the earlier litigation has attained finality when Revision Nos. 259 and 156 were decided vide order dated 04th January, 2005. The said order had attained finality and in the meantime chak parivartan was also made. The Court has found that after the notification under Section 52(1) of the Act, after an inordinate delay the petitioner has moved an application. It is also recorded therein that the appeal was earlier dismissed on 23rd April, 2005 and 26th May, 2008. In view of the above, the revisional Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act and has affirmed the order of the consolidation authorities. In my view, the dispute is between the real brothers only in respect of valuation of the land, which has already been settled earlier by the revisional Court's order on 04th January, 2005. I find no justification to reopen the issue on the pretext of the petitioner which has been correctly negated by the consolidation authorities.
In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 SKT/-