Court No. - 44
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1247 of 2019 Petitioner :- Reena Singh Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sukesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Sri S.N. Yadav, counsel for the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.9.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Etawah in Revision No. 366/137/2017-18, by which the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order dated 26.9.2017 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in Appeal No. 877 + 229, under section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
Record reflects that father of the petitioner filed objection under section 9-A (2) of the Act which was allowed vide order dated 23.2.2005. Against the said order, the respondent no. 3 and 5 filed an appeal being appeal no. 229/877. During pendency of the appeal, one of the respondents-Shravan died. Subsequently, on an application filed by respondent no. 3, he was substituted as his heir being his son and the substitution application was thus allowed on 26.4.2012 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Against that order, the petitioner filed a recall application on the ground that he was not heard before passing the aforesaid order dated 26.4.2012, which was rejected by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated29.6.2017. Revision preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.6.2017 was too dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 18.9.2018.
Contention of the counsel for petitioner is that respondent no. 3 is not the son of Shravan, who is one of the respondents in the appeal and therefore the Settlement Officer Consolidation has committed illegality by substituting him as his heir and that even the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation is a ex-parte one.
I have considered the argument so raised by the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.
It is well settled legal position that the substitution of a person in the appeal, is only for the purpose of continuation of the proceedings of appeal and no right or title can be claimed on the basis of such substitution by the substituted person. In case there is any dispute with regard to the successor ship, it is always open to the parties concerned to raise the said issue in the proceedings in question before the competent/appropriate authority.
In this view of the matter, there appears to be no infirmity or illegality in the orders impugned warranting interference in exercise of the extra ordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 SNT/