Court No. - 45
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 6407 of 1999 Petitioner :- Smt. Raghu Raji Respondent :- D.D.C. Allahabad And Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganga Prasad,D.B. Yadav,H.M. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,D D Chauhan,H.N. Shukla,R.R. Shukla
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Shri D.B. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.R. Shukla, leaned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 9.11.1998 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') in Reference No. 1610/93 registered under Section 48(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953').
3. Through the impugned order dated 9.11.1998, the D.D.C. has remanded back the matter to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.') to submit a fresh Reference after hearing the Gaon Sabha, which was the party affected by the Reference previously submitted by the S.O.C. It is evident from the records that while passing the order dated 9.11.1998, the D.D.C. has recorded a finding that the order dated 30.3.1994 passed by the D.D.C. accepting the Reference submitted by the S.O.C. was passed without hearing the Gaon Sabha and without any service of notice of the case on the Gaon Sabha.
4. The findings have been recorded after considering the evidence and material available on record and the said findings are findings of fact, which are not amenable to interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, the order dated 9.11.1998 passed by the D.D.C. is mere a remand order and the petitioner shall have an opportunity to represent his case before the S.O.C. during the preparation of Reference as well as before the D.D.C. in consequential proceedings registered under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1953. It is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed as such.
5. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Anurag/