Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 38541 of 2004 Petitioner :- Ram Chandra & Others Respondent :- D.D.C. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sankatha Rai,Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai,Vijay Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajeev Mishra,Rajesh Kr. Dwivedi,Vipin Chandra Pal
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Case has been called out in the revised list.
Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Sri Vipin Chandra Pal, counsel for respondent no. 4 are present.
The dispute in the present writ petition relates to Khata Nos. 16, 30, 70, 90 and 141. Respondent no. 4 along with Smt. Rajvanti was recorded a co-tenure holder in Khata Nos. 70 and 141. In the revenue records/Khatauni of 1372 Fasli, the petitioners were recorded tenure holders of Khata Nos. 33 and 104. During the consolidation proceedings held in the village, the petitioners as well as respondent no. 4 and other persons filed objections under Section 9-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') regarding the entries in the basic year Khatauni. On the aforesaid objections, cases were registered before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. Subsequently, on the basis of some compromise dated 19.2.1989, an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on the same date disposing of the objections. Against the order dated 19.2.1989 passed by the Consolidation Officer, respondent no. 4 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his judgment and order dated 13.3.1989 and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to pass fresh orders. In his aforesaid order dated 13.3.1989, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation recorded a finding that the compromise was not signed by all the parties and was not properly verified. On remand, the objections were re-heard by the Consolidation Officer who decided the same vide his order dated 13.11.2002. Vide his judgment and order dated 13.11.2002, the Consolidation Officer decided the share of petitioners as well as respondents in Khata Nos. 30, 90 and 16 and held respondent no. 4 to be sole tenure holder of Khata Nos. 70 and 141. In his order dated 13.11.2002, the Consolidation Officer rejected the entries in the Khatauni of 1372 Fasli on which the petitioners relied in order to substantiate their objections on the ground that the entry in the aforesaid revenue records in favour of the petitioners was suspicious and appeared to be forged as no date of the aforesaid entry was shown in the Khatauni and the name of the person recording the petitioners in the aforesaid Khatauni as well as the name of the Officer who was supposed to check the entries was also not shown in the revenue record. In view of the aforesaid discrepancies in the revenue records, the Consolidation Officer rejected the case of the petitioners. Against the order dated 13.11.2002 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 30.4.2003. Consequently, the petitioners filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur i.e. respondent no. 1 which was registered as Revision No. 438 and the same was dismissed by respondent no. 1 vide his judgment and order dated 25.8.2004 on the ground that the petitioners had not produced any evidence to prove their objections and entries in the Khatauni of 1372 Fasli on which the petitioners were relying to substantiate their objections was suspect and cannot be relied upon to decide the claim of the petitioners. The orders dated 25.8.2004, 30.4.2003 and 13.11.2002 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
A perusal of the memorandum of writ petition shows that the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders of the Consolidation authorities on the ground that respondent no. 4 had no locus-standi to file objections as his relationship with Rajvanti was neither pleaded nor proved. In support of the aforesaid ground, the petitioners have annexed a copy of the judgment of this Court reported in 1974 ALJ 552. In their impugned orders, the Consolidation authorities have also reasoned that the objections of respondent no. 4 was liable to be allowed as the petitioners had not filed any written statement to the objections of respondent no. 4. The said reasons given by the Consolidation Courts have been challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition on the ground that petitioners had themselves filed objections under Section 9-A of the Act, 1953 and therefore not filing any written statement to the objections filed by respondent no. 4 could not be treated as fatal to the case of the petitioners. In the writ petition, the petitioners have also stated that they were not given any opportunity by the consolidation officer to adduce evidence. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 4 wherein it has been stated that, in his objections, respondent no. 4 had pleaded his relationship with Rajvanti, submitted himself to examination and was also cross-examined on the said plea. No rejoinder affidavit to the aforesaid counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the argument of counsel for the petitioners regarding the locus-standi of respondent no. 4 to file any objections under Section 9-A of the Act is misconceived and is rejected. Further, the argument of the petitioners that they were not given any opportunity to produce their evidence before the Consolidation officer is also belied from the records. It would be evident from the impugned order passed by the Consolidation Authorities that the petitioners had argued their case before the Consolidation officer and no objection was raised by them in the memorandum of appeal that the Consolidation officer had not given them sufficient opportunity to produce their evidence. The aforesaid argument of counsel for the petitioners is also rejected. The contention of the petitioners that the impugned orders are bad in law because of the opinion recorded by the Consolidation Authorities that the objections of respondent no. 4 should be accepted as no written statement to the aforesaid objections had been filed by the petitioners is also not sustainable inasmuch as the ground given by the Consolidation Authorities in their impugned orders for accepting the objections filed by respondent no. 4 was that the claim of the petitioners was based on entries in their favour in the revenue records relating to 1372 Fasli and the said entries were suspicious and appeared to be forged. The findings recorded by the Consolidation Authorities in their impugned orders are findings of fact and not amenable to examination under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Satyam