Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Riyaz Ahmad And Another vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 July, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1866 of 2019 Petitioner :- Riyaz Ahmad And Another Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava,Dinesh Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajiv Kumar Mishra,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Shri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, Advocate, representing respondent No. 5, 6 and 7.
The present writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 2.7.2019 and 5.7.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') accepting the Reference submitted to him by the Consolidation Officer under Section 48(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'). Through his aforesaid orders, the D.D.C. has amended the chaks allotted to the parties and also affected the chak of the petitioners on Plot N. 711. It is apparent from the records that the impugned orders were passed by the D.D.C. without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the orders dated 2.7.2019 and 5.7.2019 passed by the D.D.C. are contrary to Section 48(1) of the Act, 1953 and therefore liable to be set aside. Opposing the writ petition, the counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 has argued that through the impugned orders, the respondents have been restored a chak on Plot No. 711, which was their original holding and was adjacent to road, and therefore, the petitioners are nor entitled to a chak on the aforesaid plots. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It is apparent that the orders dated 2.7.2019 and 5.7.2019 were passed by the D.D.C. without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Under Section 48 of the Act, 1953, a tenure holder, who is affected by the Reference submitted by the subordinate consolidation authority is entitled to a hearing by the subordinate consolidation authority before preparing the Reference and subsequently also a hearing by the D.D.C. before passing any order under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1953 on the Reference submitted by the subordinate consolidation authority. Apparently, the petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing by the D.D.C. before passing the orders dated 2.7.2019 and 5.7.2019.
In view of the aforesaid, the orders dated 2.7.2019 and 5.7.2019 passed by the D.D.C. are liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded back to the D.D.C. to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the interested parties.
For the aforesaid reasons, the orders dated 2.7.2019 and 5.7.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, i.e., respondent No. 1 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh to decide the Reference submitted to him by the S.O.C. under Section 48(3) of the Act, 1953 within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed 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. Till fresh orders are passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, the parties shall maintain status quo regarding the disputed plot.
It is clarified that the orders dated 2.7.2019 and 5.7.2019 passed by the D.D.C. has been set aside only on the ground of violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1953 and the principles of natural justice and this order may not be treated as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case of the petitioner especially in light of contention of the counsel for respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 that Plot No. 711 was the original holding of respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 and was adjacent to road, and therefore, they were entitled to a chak on the same.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Anurag/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Riyaz Ahmad And Another vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
30 July, 2019
Judges
  • Salil Kumar Rai
Advocates
  • Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Dinesh Pathak