Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3677 of 2018 Petitioner :- Hari Shankar Respondent :- Consolidation Officer, And 16 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhirendra Singh
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The respondent Nos. 4 to 6 aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had preferred a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The case of the contesting respondents was that an ex- parte order was passed behind their back by the Consolidation Officer on 2.6.1983 whereby name of the contesting respondents was expunged by Lekhpal without any order of the competent authority or the Court when this fact came to the knowledge of the contesting respondents they preferred an appeal which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order they preferred the aforementioned revision.
After hearing both the parties the D.D.C. has passed an order that the name of the contesting respondents/ revisionists was illegally expunged without any order of the competent court. He has also found that the Lekhpal has struck off the name of the contesting respondents and has not even made his initial in the said order. The D.D.C. by the order impugned dated 28.3.2018 has simply remanded the matter back to decide it after hearing both the parties and pass a fresh order on merits.
In view of the above, I decline to interfere with the said innocuous order where the D.D.C. has simply remanded the matter to decide it on merits.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that most of the family members of the contesting respondents were not living in the village as they were in the employment hence taking advantage of absence of family members of the contesting respondents, the petitioner by playing fraud had got their names deleted from the revenue records. He further submits that the petitioner belongs to other caste than that of contesting respondents and the entry has been made in his favour in connivance with revenue officials.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at length and he has taken the Court to the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and has tried to justify the findings recorded by the appellate court in support of his submissions.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order of the D.D.C. does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The D.D.C. has simply directed the authority concerned to decide the matter on merits after hearing both the parties. Admittedly, the earlier orders were ex-parte as the contesting respondents were not heard.
In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. The Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a year. He will not grant any unnecessary adjournment and if any party seeks adjournment he will not grant it without imposing cost of not less than Rs. 500/- on every adjournment.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 Digamber