Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1074 of 2021 Petitioner :- Jagannath And 2 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,Om Narayan Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard Sri Om Narayan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent nos.1 to 4 and perused the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Auraiyya (in brevity "D.D.C.") (respondent no.1) in Revision Nos.152 and 153.
The dispute giving rise to the instant petition relates to allotment of chak during Provisional Consolidation Scheme.
Grievance of the petitioners is that respondent no.1 has illegally negated the claim of the petitioners, without affording them opportunity of hearing, though the revisions filed by respondent nos.5 and 6 were dismissed, and without considering the memo of revision dated 31.12.2020 filed by petitioners.
It is stated that respondent no.5 (Ram Shankar) and respondent no.6 (Bhagwat Dayal) have filed two separate objections with respect to the allotment of chak but both the objections were rejected by separate orders dated 03.09.2019 passed by the Consolidation Officer (respondent no.3) on the ground of laches. Feeling aggrieved, respondent nos.5 and 6 have preferred separate appeals before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity "S.O.C.") (respondent no.2). The S.O.C. has dismissed both the appeals by separate orders dated 10.09.2019. Feeling aggrieved, respondent nos.5 and 6 have preferred separate revisions dated 16.11.2019 before the respondent no.1. During pendency of aforesaid revisions, present petitioners have also preferred revision dated 31.12.2020 against the order dated 10.09.2019. On the memo of revision filed by the petitioner, the D.D.C. has made an endorsement dated 31.12.2020 to the effect that there is no need to register the revision separately and same may be tagged with the previous revisions which are filed with respect to Plot No.168/3. But vide impugned order dated 04.01.2021, though both the revisions were dismissed but, the D.D.C. has made observation negating claim of the petitioners, which is under challenge in this petition before this Court.
Submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the D.D.C. has illegally made observation against the petitioners in negating their claim in deciding the revisions filed by the respondent nos.5 and 6, though the aforesaid revisions were dismissed and before making such observation, opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to them. Even the memo of revision filed by the petitioners has illegally not been considered by the respondent no.1. It is further submitted that the revision filed by the petitioners should also have been considered by the respondent no.1 in support of case of the petitioners and same should also have been decided on merits along with other two revisions which were preferred by the respondent nos.5 and 6. Claim of the petitioners, as averred in the memo of revision dated 31.12.2020, has neither been considered by the respondent no.1, nor any opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the petitioners to substantiate their claim, as mentioned in the memo of revision.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that the present petitioners, in case, are aggrieved with the impugned order, which is said to have been passed ex parte against them, they have an opportunity to move an application before the respondent no.1 for getting their memo of revision registered and get their claim decided, after affording proper opportunity of hearing.
Petition on board reveals that against the order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the S.O.C., two revisions were preferred. Revision No.152/2019 was filed by the respondent no.5 and Revision No.153/2019 was filed by the respondent no.6. During pendency of the aforesaid revisions, at a belated stage, petitioners have also filed a revision dated 30.12.2020 against the order dated 10.10.2019. On the margin of the first page of revision, the D.D.C. has made an endorsement, on the same day i.e. 30.12.2020, to the Reader that "Do not register separately. Tagged with previous revisions relating to Plot no.168/3." Order dated 31.12.2020 (Annexure-7) reveals that petitioners have filed revision dated 30.12.2020 after completion of spot inspection and arguments concluded in the previous revisions. In the aforesaid order dated 31.12.2020 it is also observed that the revisionist of previous petitions have prayed for dismissal of the revision. In the light of the aforesaid fact, the D.D.C. has made an observation in the order dated 31.12.2020 to put the memo of revision filed by the petitioners along with Revision Nos.152 and 153 for final disposal. Respondent no.1, vide order dated 04.01.2021, has dismissed both the revisions i.e. Revision No.152 and 153, which were filed by the respondent nos.5 and 6 respectively. While dismissing the revisions, the D.D.C. has made one line observation that during spot inspection claim made by the present petitioners is unfounded. Petitioners have shown their grievance against aforesaid observation by which their claim has been shown to be negated during spot inspection, whereas memo of revision filed by the present petitioners has neither been considered nor any opportunity of hearing had been given to them to strengthen their claim.
In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of this petition, without entering into the merits of the case, as mentioned in the present writ petition as well as in the memo of revision, with a direction that petitioners are at liberty to move an application for registering their memo of revision dated 30.12.2021 (Annexure-6) and to decide the same on merits, within the period of three weeks from today along with a copy of this order, before the D.D.C. (respondent no.1), who shall decide the aforesaid application expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of aforesaid application.
It is expected that the aforesaid revision should be decided by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned without granting unnecessary adjournments.
With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Manish Himwan