Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4864 of 2018 Petitioner :- Jhinnu Prasad Yadav Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Pratap Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay,Sanjeev Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.
Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.07.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh in Revision No. 448 (Shiv Bachan Vs. Harishchandra), whereby the Deputy Director of Consolidation directed prior to decide the amendment application, spot inspection be made.
The record reveals that earlier the order dated 3.4.2012 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh was challenged before this Court in Writ B No. 18987 of 2012, which was finally allowed by this Court quashing the order dated 3.4.2012, whereby the order dated 19.3.2012 has been modified. The operative portion of the said judgment is quoted as under:
"In view of the fact that no counter affidavit has been filed and the order dated 3.4.2012 apparently suffers from the breach of principal of natural justice, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 3.4.2012 by which order dated 19.3.2012 passed in Revision No. 709 (Shiv Chand vs. Budhiram and others) has been modified cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same are hereby quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.The DDC is directed to pass a fresh order on the modification application filed by respondent no.3.
It may be clarified that I have not addressed myself either on the merit of the modification or its maintainability and it is in the sole domain of the DDC to pass an independent order in accordance with after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties."
After the remand of this Court, the Deputy Director of Consolidation proceeded with the case and passed the impugned order holding therein that prior to decide the amendment application, the spot inspection is necessary as matter is very complicated. The date was fixed for 23.8.2018 for making spot inspection.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the application for amending the earlier order dated 19.3.2012 is not maintainable and therefore, there is no justification for fixing date for making spot inspection. The question with regard to the maintainability of the application as well as matter decided on merits has already been remanded by this Court by judgment dated 26.4.2016.
In the order impugned, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that since the matter is complicated and therefore, spot inspection is necessary. The order making spot inspection does not prejudice any right of the petitioner but facilitate the authorities in deciding the case on merits as well as on the maintainability of the amendment application.
Writ petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
The matter is pending since 2012 and therefore, the direction is issued to Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Noman