Heard Sri Aniruddh Pratap Singh, learned counsel and Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel, for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri Anoop Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
The petitioner had made an application before the Consolidation Officer that the disputed parcel of land was not liable to be valued as it was beyond the purview of consolidation proceedings being abadi land. The objection was rejected by the courts below by the impugned orders dated 24.03.2017 and 22.01.2020 on two grounds. Firstly the objection was filed under an incorrect provision of law. Secondly all necessary parties likely to be affected by an adjudication of such objection were not impleaded.
Sri Anoop Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the respondent No.4 shall be directly affected by the adjudication of the objection of the petitioner.
Admittedly the objection of the petitioner was not decided by the courts below on merits while passing the impugned orders. The application of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned orders are on purely technical grounds. The defects in the application were curable.
The petitioner should have been permitted to correct the nomenclature by stating the particulars of provisions under which the application was filed and also to implead the necessary parties. The authorities below should have decided the objection on merits thereafter upon hearing all necessary parties who would be affected by such adjudication.The objections of the petitioner are liable to be decided on merits.
It is pertinent to note that the objection of the petitioner was allowed by the Consolidation Officer by the order dated 04.11.2016. The order of the Consolidation Officer dated 04.11.2016 is unsustainable in law, since it was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to all necessary parties including respondent No.4. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit of the aforesaid order.
In such view of the matter, the orders dated 04.11.2016, 24.03.2017 and 22.01.2020 are arbitrary and illegal.
The orders dated 04.11.2016, 24.03.2017 and 22.01.2020 are liable to be set aside and are set aside.
The matter is remitted to the respondent No.3-Consolidation Officer, Etah, District-Etah.
A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the respondent No.3-Consolidation Officer, Etah, District-Etah commanding him to execute the following directions:
I. The respondent No.3-Consolidation Officer, Etah, District-Etah shall permit the petitioner to state the correct provisions of law under which the objection was filed by moving an application in this regard. The respondent No.3-Consolidation Officer, Etah, District-Etah shall also permit the petitioner to implead all necessary parties including the respondent No.4 who are liable to be affected by the adjudication of the controversy.
II. The respondent No.3-Consolidation Officer, Etah, District-Etah shall notice and hear all necessary parties to the lis on merits in accordance with law.
III. The objection of the petitioner shall be decided on merits, expeditiously, by a reasoned order in accordance with law.
IV. The respondent No.3-Consolidation Officer, Etah, District-Etah while deciding the application shall not influence by the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 31.01.2018 rejecting the restoration application of the petitioner.
It is clarified that this Court has not entered into merits of the controversy. It is for the competent authority to decide the issue upon independent application of mind and in accordance with law.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Order Date :- 25.1.2021 Ashish Tripathi