Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1838 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pherai Respondent :- Upper Ziladhikari (Vitta And Rajaswa)/Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajeet Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 4/1 and 4/2, is taken on record.
Heard Shri Suresh Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Bhola Nath Yadav, Advocate, representing respondent Nos. 3, 4/1 and 4/2 An order dated 23.6.2008 was passed by the Consolidation Officer, Jaunpur, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.') on objections filed by respondents ostensibly under Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), whereby the C.O. amended the allotment of chaks previously made by him vide his order dated 20.1.2001. The order dated 23.6.2008 passed by the C.O. recites that the said order was being passed with the consent of the parties. The petitioner filed Revision No. 61/2016 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C') in which amongst other grounds he raised the plea that he had not consented to the order dated 23.6.2008 and the said order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the him and the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by the C.O. was without jurisdiction.
The D.D.C. vide his order dated 29.6.2019 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground that the order dated 23.6.2008 was passed with the consent of the parties and setting aside the aforesaid order shall disturb the possession of the parties. For the reasons stated above, the D.D.C. refused to interfere in the revision filed against the order dated 23.6.2008. In his order dated 29.6.2019, the D.D.C. has also recorded the fact that as the order dated 20.1.2001 was previously passed by the C.O. regarding the disputed chaks, therefore, the C.O. could not have passed the order dated 23.6.2008. The orders dated 23.6.2008 and 29.6.2019 passed by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. have been challenged in the present writ petition.
It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner and it has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner had never consented to the order dated 23.6.2008 and the said order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In a short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 4/1 and 4/2 , the respondents have contested the said averment of the petitioner and have alleged that the order dated 23.6.2008 was passed after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing and with the consent of all the parties.
A reading of the impugned order dated 29.6.2019 passed by the D.D.C. shows that no documents or records of the case have been referred by the D.D.C. while recording a finding regarding the recital in the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by the C.O. that the said order had been passed with the consent of the parties. In absence of ny such reference, it is not possible to verify whether the order dated 29.6.2019 has been passed by the D.D.C. mechanically or by applying his mind after considering the relevant materials. Further, there is no finding in the order dated 29.6.2019 regarding the jurisdiction of the C.O. to pass any further order amending the allotment of chaks in light of his previous order dated 20.1.2001.
In view of the aforesaid, it is a fit case where the matter should be remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass fresh and reasoned order in Revision No. 61/2016 meeting out the allegations made in the memorandum of revision filed by the petitioner and after recording a categorical finding on the allegations made by the petitioner after considering the records. The order of the D.D.C. should indicate the documents and records examined by him in support of any finding recorded in his order. The orders dated 23.6.2008 and 29.6.2019 passed by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur to pass fresh orders in Revision No. 61/2016 within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him by either of the parties and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the interested parties.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Anurag/-