Case :- WRIT - B No. - 77 of 1977 Petitioner :- Sita Ram Respondent :- D.D.C. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- D.S.P. Singh,R.N. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- P.C. Gautam,SC
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Case has been called out in the revised list.
Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 2 is present.
During the consolidation proceedings held in the village, objections were filed by respondent no. 3 and other persons under Section 9-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') in the court of Consolidation Officer, Badagaon, District Varanasi which was numbered as Case No. 680. The aforesaid case was decided by the Consolidation Officer vide his judgment and order dated 27.12.1972. Against the aforesaid order passed by the Consolidation Officer, respondent no. 3 filed an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the Act, 1953 which was numbered as Appeal No. 179 of 1973 and was decided by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide judgment and order dated 17.8.1974. Against the judgment and order 17.8.1974 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Rajbali and others filed a revision which was numbered as Revision No. 1355 and respondent no. 3 filed a revision which was numbered as Revision No. 1459. The aforesaid revisions were filed under Section 48 (1) of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi i.e. respondent no. 1. The said revisions were decided and dismissed by respondent no. 1 vide judgment and order dated 6.1.1976. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a restoration application before respondent no. 1 stating that the order dated 6.1.1976 was passed by respondent no. 1 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and they were not present before respondent no. 1 in the proceedings mentioned above. On the application of the petitioners, Restoration Case No. 3488/1459 and 5489/1355 were registered and the same were dismissed by respondent no. 1 vide his judgment and order dated 1.12.1976. The orders dated 1.12.1976 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1 and 17.8.1974 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 2 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
In his order dated 1.12.1976, respondent no. 1, after considering the records of the case, has recorded a finding that the petitioners were served and had notice of the case and were also sufficiently represented before the concerned courts. It has been recorded that the orders were passed by the revisional court after hearing all the concerned parties and the allegation of the petitioners as made in the restoration application are not supported by records. The findings recorded by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in their orders dated 1.12.1976 and 17.8.1974 are based on evidence on record. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the aforesaid orders passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2.
The findings recorded by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in their orders dated 1.12.1976 and 17.8.1974 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.
Order Date :- 23.3.2018 Satyam