Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5660 of 2018 Petitioner :- Raghupati And 5 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Murli Dhar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arunesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kshitij Shailendra, counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, the contesting respondents.
The impugned order dated 03.11.2018 is an order of remand passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute between the parties stood decided by means of a compromise entered into before the civil Court. This compromise pertain to separate khatas. During consolidation operations and in pursuance of the directions issued by the High Court earlier, this compromise decree has been implemented as regards one of the khatas. This dispute where from this writ petition pertains to other khatas which wre also subject matter of the compromise decree.
It is, therefore, contended that the order of remand has wrongly been passed and that the first respondent, in view of explanation (3) to Section 48 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, was competent to have decided the matter himself. He has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him and has unnecessarily remanded the matter prolonging the litigation between the parties.
Counsel for the respondents has tried to support the impugned order.
However I find substance in the submission that the Deputy Director of Consolidation being last court of fact, he is competent to record findings both on facts and on law, after appreciation of the evidence available on record. He has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested him, and has unnecessarily remanded the matter.
For this reason alone, this writ petition is liable to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 03.11.2018 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties, strictly in accordance with law.
This exercise may be completed positively within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
After the judgment had been dictated in open Court, but before it could be signed, an application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner that the matter be remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation and not the District Deputy Director of Consolidation who had passed the impugned order of remand. I do not find any merit in this application. In any case, the district Deputy Director of Consolidation is competent to assign the matter to any other Court. Moreover, copy of the application has not been served upon the opposite party. For this reason also, the prayer made therein, cannot be granted.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 Priyanka