(1) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2) This petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for a direction to be issued to the Consolidation Officer, Kadipur, District Sultanpur, to expeditiously decide the objections filed under Section 9A (2) of the Consolidation Holding Act, in Case No.53 of 2011 (Patti Vs. Mahabir and Others).
(3) This Court noticed on the first day of hearing that the objection had been filed in the year 1980, and it had not been decided, therefore, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions regarding pendency of the said objections for the past more than three decades.
(4) Learned Standing Counsel has received instructions, a copy of which has been produced before this Court which was duly signed by the Consolidation Officer, Kadipur, District Sultanpur. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that initially an objection was filed under Section 9A (2) on 10.12.1980 on the basis of a sale deed executed in favour of Harish Chandra and Ram Chander sons of Paras Nath.
(5) Another objection was filed by Mahavir, Shivmurat, Bhagirathi and others sons of Ram Deo with regard to the same property i.e. Khata No.84, Plot No.523. Later on, another objection was filed by Msst Acharja, the widow of Ram Kumar. Not only with respect to same Khata but there were other objections also filed with respect to other Khatas of the village Udhari i.e. Khata Nos. 12, 81, 359, 269, 308, 365, 270 and 47.
(6) Since all objections relate to the same village, therefore, they were all clubbed together and are being heard together. The order of connection dated 13.08.1980 had been challenged by one Ram Milan but said challenge was rejected by an order dated 14.05.1981. In instructions the Consolidation Officer, Kadipur, has stated that because of several objections being filed and there being numerous parties to the dispute, some of the parties having died in the meantime also and substitution application being filed and even amendment applications, and adjournment sought by the various parties, the case could not be decided till date. He has, however, stated that as and when the case is listed regular hearing takes place. There is an assurance given in the said instructions, which are kept on record, that the Consolidation Officer shall try and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible by fixing two dates in a week for hearing.
(7) This petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the Consolidation Officer, Kadipur, District Sultanpur, to try and dispose of the case said to be pending before him at the earliest, without giving unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 PAL