Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 26862 of 2001 Petitioner :- Smt. Kusum Devi Respondent :- D.D.C., Bulandshahr And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Gupta,Rajendra Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,V.K.Singh
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
1. The case has been called out in the revised list. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is present.
2. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to Plot No. 196-M (area 6 Bigha 2 Biswa) of Khata No. 258. During the consolidation proceedings held in the Village the petitioner filed objections under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Sikandarabad, Bulandshahr stating therein that the disputed plot was allotted to her by respondent No. 5 i.e. the Gaon Sabha. The said objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer, vide his order dated 20.7.1993. The petitioner, claiming that the order dated 20.7.1993 was an ex-parte order, filed an application dated 4.1.1994 praying that order dated 20.7.1993 passed by the Consolidation Officer be recalled and the case be restored to its original number. However, the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 22.3.1996. Against the order dated 22.3.1996 passed by the Consolidation Officer, petitioner filed an Appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C'). The said Appeal was registered as Appeal No. 2040 of 1996. The aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the S.O.C vide his order dated 28.12.1999. Consequently, petitioner filed a Revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953, before respondent No. 1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Bulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), which was registered as Revision No. 119 of 2000. The said Revision was dismissed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 4.5.2001. The orders dated 4.5.2001, 28.12.1999 and 22.3.1996 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
3. Even though the Appeal and the Revision filed by the petitioner arose from order dated 22.3.1996 passed by Consolidation Officer, which apparently was an order dismissing the restoration application of the petitioner, a perusal of the record shows that while passing the impugned orders the Consolidation authorities have also considered and rejected the claim of the petitioner on merits as in support of her claims as raised through her objections filed under Section 9-A of the Act, 1953, the petitioner had merely filed a photocopy of the alleged mutation order passed in her favour by the Revenue Authorities before the consolidation proceedings started in the village. In the aforesaid circumstances, the objections filed by the petitioner were liable to be dismissed. The Consolidation Officer vide his impugned order dated 22.3.1996 had rightly dismissed the case of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was unable to establish her case under Section 9-A of the Act, 1953. In his impugned order dated 4.5.2001, the D.D.C. has recorded his opinion that the photocopy of the documents produced by the petitioner cannot be relied upon to consider the case of the petitioner.
4. There is no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merit, and is, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Anurag/-