Court No. - 45
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 858 of 1996 Petitioner :- Mohd.Haleem Respondent :- Distt. Dy.Director Of Consolidation And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sk Singh,M.N. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajeet Kumar Singh,Kb Garg
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Sri Amol Ranjan, Advocate holding brief of Sri M.N. Singh, the counsel for the petitioner.
The facts of the case as evident from the records are that the petitioner and respondent nos. 3 and 4 were recorded in the revenue records relating to Khata No. 531. On a report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Handia, District Allahabad, Case No. 60 under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was registered in the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh who vide his order dated 26.4.1993 held that the entries in the revenue records, i.e., in C.H. Form-45 in favour of the petitioner were forged entries and therefore directed that the same be deleted and the plots be recorded as Naveen Padti and in the name of Gaon Sabha. As the order dated 26.4.1993 was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner challenged the said order in this Court and this Court vide its order dated 6.10.1993 permitted the petitioner to file a restoration application for recall of the said order dated 26.4.1993. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a recall application which was also dismissed by order dated 19.5.1995 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad. The orders dated 26.4.1993 and 19.5.1995 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 19.5.1995 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the recall application filed by the petitioner was contrary to the order dated 6.10.1993 passed by this Court. It was further argued that the orders dated 26.4.1993 and 19.5.1995 have been passed ignoring the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in favour of the petitioner.
I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner.
Vide its order dated 6.10.1993, this Court had permitted the petitioner to file a recall application for recall of the order dated 26.4.1993 and had directed that the said recall application be decided on merits and shall not be dismissed on grounds of delay. In his order dated 19.5.1995, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered the case on merits after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and has affirmed his order dated 26.4.1993 thereby rejecting the recall/restoration application filed by the petitioner. The restoration application has not been dismissed on grounds of delay but has been dismissed on merits and therefore the order dated 19.5.1995 is not contrary to the order dated 6.10.1993 passed by this Court. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, it is apparent from the order dated 19.5.1995 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the petitioner did not produce the alleged order dated 26.5.1976 passed by the Settlement officer of Consolidation in his favour. The recital in C.H. Form-45 regarding the alleged orders dated 26.5.1976 / 29.5.1981 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was found by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to be forged. The findings regarding the correctness of the recitals on C.H. Form-45 in relation to the alleged orders dated 26.5.1976 / 29.5.1981 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation are findings of fact and based on evidence on record and are not amenable to interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has filed a copy of the order dated 26.5.1976 in this Court and has annexed the same Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. However, there is no reasonable explanation as to why the petitioner did not file the same before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who was competent to consider the genuineness of the copy of the alleged order dated 26.5.1976. In that view of the matter, the copy of the orders dated 26.5.1976 and 29.5.1981 filed by the petitioner as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition cannot, for the first time, be considered by this Court in its equitable and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no illegality in the orders dated 26.4.1993 and 19.5.1995.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Satyam