Court No. - 27
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 43148 of 2014 Petitioner :- Lalta Prasad Respondent :- D.D.C. And And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- A. Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anant Vijay
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri A. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anant Vijay, learned counsel for the respondents.
The present writ petition has been against the order dated 31.07.2014 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation/A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Chitrakoot, district Chitrakoot whereby, the Revision No.36 of 2013 (Udaibhan Singh Vs. Lalta Prasad) preferred by the respondent no.2 has been allowed.
The facts, in brief, of the case are that Plot No.141/2 was recorded in the name of Udaibhan Singh, i.e., respondent no.2. During the consolidation proceedings the said plot was allotted to petitioner by order dated 09.02.1998 passed by the Consolidation Officer.
Order dated 09.02.1998 passed by the Consolidation Officer was challenged by the respondent no.2 in Appeal No.288 of 1998 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Chitrakoot. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 18.07.1998 found no merit in the appeal preferred by the respondent no.2 and consequently, dismissed the appeal. Respondent no.2 thereafter against the order dated 18.07.1998 preferred Revision No. 51 of 1999-2000 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and respondent no.2 got the revision dismissed as not pressed. The order dated 25.10.2002 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the revision is being reproduced herein below:-
"आज पतत्रावलली पपेश हहई . पपुकत्रार करत्राई गयली उभय पक्ष ककी ओर सपे अधधिवकत्रा व स्वययं पक्ष हत्राधजर आए . सपुनत्रा गयत्रा ववदत्रान अधधिवकत्रा वनगरत्रानलीकरत्रार्ता दत्रारत्रा वनगरत्रानली ननॉट पपेस ककी वनगरत्रानली वनरस्र करनपे ककी मत्रायंग ककी धजसपे स्वलीकत्रार कर आदपेश वदयत्रा जत्रारत्रा हहै वक वनगरत्रानली वनरस्र वकयत्रा जत्रारत्रा हहै. पतत्रावलली वत्राद आवश्यक पपूवरर्ता दत्राधखिल दफ्रर हह".
In the meantime, consolidation proceedings in the aforesaid village was finalized and notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was published by the State Government on 22.12.2009.
It appears that after about 11 years from the date of dismissal of the revision of respondent no.2, he (respondent no.2) again preferred an appeal No. 534 of 2013 challenging the order dated 09.02.1998 passed by the Consolidation Officer allotting the aforesaid plot No.141/2 in favour of petitioner. The said appeal was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Chitrakoot by order dated 18.12.2013 holding that the rights of parties have become final. Respondent no.2 thereafter preferred Revision No.36 of 2013 which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 31.07.2014 holding that part of plot of respondent no.2 is not fertile and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that part of Plot No.141/2 which is fertile, be allotted to respondent no.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the order dated 31.07.2014 has contended that the rights between petitioner and respondent no.2, as regards the Plot No.142/2, have become final inasmuch as, against the allotment order dated 09.02.1998 respondent no.2 preferred an appeal No.288 of 1998 which was dismissed along with other connected appeals by order dated 18.07.1998 and against the said order, revision preferred by the respondent no.2 was also dismissed as not pressed on 25.10.2002.
The submission is that the right between the parties have attained finality as respondent no.2 has not challenged the order dated 25.10.2002 passed in Revision No. 51 of 1999-2000 and once the order of Consolidation Officer allotting the plot No.141/2 has become final, the same cannot be reopened after about 12 years without getting the earlier orders set aside by the competent court.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that delay in filing the appeal No.534 of 2013 has been condoned and said order has not challenged by the petitioner and consequently, the revisional court has rightly entertained the revision.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
The fact as it transpires from the record is that the plot no. 141/2 was allotted in favour of petitioner by order dated 09.02.1998 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Respondent no.2 did not succeed in appeal preferred by him against the aforesaid order. Thereafter, revision preferred by the respondent no.2 was also got dismissed by respondent no.2 as not pressed. No remedy has been availed by respondent no.2 against the aforesaid orders. The aforesaid orders are in existence and have attained finality.
Once the right between the parties have become final, it is settled in law that same cannot be reopened in proceedings subsequently, on the principles of resjudicata as provided under Section 11 of C.P.C.
In view of the aforesaid, the subsequent appeal No.534 of 2013 was rightly dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The revisional court's order reveals that without adverting the finding of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, the revisional court allowed the revision despite the fact that rights between the parties have become final and revision was not maintainable. Thus, there is an apparent error committed by the revisional court in allowing the revision of respondent no.2 and consequently, order dated 31.07.2014 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation/A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Chitrakoot, District Chitrakoot in Revision No.36 of 2013 (Udaibhan Singh Vs. Lalta Prasad) is set aside.
For the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 Sattyarth