Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2909 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shamshul Islam And 10 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahabir Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard Sri Mahabir Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners. Ms. Praveen Shukla, learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by respondent No.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation Prayagraj in Revision No.798/605/2019 (Shamshul Islam and others Vs. Iqbal Ahmad) under Section 48(1)of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1953") and order dated 13.08.2018 passed by respondent No.2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Prayagraj in Appeal No. 174 (Shamshul Islam and others Vs. Iqbal Ahmad) under Section 21(2) of the Act, 1953.
Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the property in dispute is situated in village Machhar @ Purwa, Pargana Arail, Tehsil Karchana, District Prayagraj. One Baban resident of Village Nidauri Tehsil Karchhana District Prayagraj having five sons. The said Babban died before the Consolidation proceedings started in village and the property belonging to said Babban was divided among his five sons equally.
It is contended that the father of the petitioners namely Zahid Ali was murdered due to some village partibandi and at the relevant time, the petitioners were minor. It is further contended when the respondent No.3/Iqbal Ahmad wanted to sell the aforesaid chak, the petitioners approached the respondent No.2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Prayagraj by filing an appeal No.175 of 2017 for recalling the amending order dated 11.06.1974 passed in Appeal No.12044 by the then Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In the proceedings initiated under Section 21(2) of the Act, 1953, the respondent No.2 rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was preferred after forty four years on 13.8.2018. Against the aforesaid order, a revision was preferred by the petitioners before respondent No.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation. The said revision was not only dismissed on the ground of limitation but cogent findings were also recorded in the order by the respondent No.1.
In the supplementary affidavit filed today, memo of appeal was also filed by the petitioners. From perusal of the memo of appeal, it is clear that no cogent grounds whatsoever have been taken in the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the respondent no.2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners were minor, at the relevant time, they were not able to challenge the order dated 11.6.1994 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation Allahabad/Prayagraj and as such the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of limitation.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel argued that no cogent reasons whatsoever has been assigned by the petitioners while filing the appeal after 44 years. It is further argued by her that the order passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are absolutely perfect and valid and does not call for any interference by this Court specially under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further argued that pursuant to the order dated 11.06.1974, necessary amendment has already been made in the revenue records and all the tenure holders are in possession of their land from last four decades and as such there is no valid reason for the Writ Court o interfere in the orders which are impugned in this writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the records.
From perusal of record, it is clear that without giving any cogent reason for delay the appeal was preferred by the petitioners after lapse of 44 years, the same was rightly rejected by the respondent No.2 vide its order dated 13.08.2018. Against the aforesaid order, the revision was preferred by the petitioners was also rejected by the respondent No.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Prayagraj vide its order dated 20.08.2019 and while rejecting the revision, cogent reasons were given by the respondent No.1.
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that no ground is made to interfere in the orders impugned by this Court specially under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 saqlain