High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Kishun v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 12960 of 2005  RD-AH 5004 (2 March 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.12960 of 2005
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and Others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.
The dispute relates to plot no. 523. Initially, the said plot was valued and included in the consolidation operation. However, vide order dated 23.10.2002 passed by the Consolidation Officer the said plot was kept out of consolidation proceedings. Two appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. One appeal was filed under Section 9(b) of the Act challenging the order dated 23.10.2002 by which the plot in dispute was declared as chak out and the other appeal was filed under Section 21(2) of the Act. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 8.5.2003 set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer declaring the plot in dispute as chak out and allotted the same in chak one of Brijlal.
Feeling aggrieved, the contesting respondent no. 5 filed a revision without impleading the petitioner as party. The petitioner filed an impleadment application on 24.6.2004 for being impleaded as party in the revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 27.12.2004 allowed the said revision and allotted the disputed plot in chak of respondent no. 5.
It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation without considering the impleadment application filed by the petitioner and without passing any order thereon. It has also been urged that while allowing the revision filed by the respondent no. 5 the Deputy Director of Consolidation has disturbed the main road as well as chak road.
A copy of impleadment application moved by the petitioner has been annexed as annexure 5 to the writ petition. Similarly, a copy of the revision filed by respondent no. 5 has also been annexed as S.A.-7 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner.
A perusal of the memo of revision goes to show that neither the petitioner nor Brijlal in whose chak disputed plot was allotted has been made party. It is also clear from the perusal of the impugned order that the impleadment application filed by the petitioner was not considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation before passing the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order further goes to show that the main road and chak road have also been disturbed, though there is nothing on record to indicate that the consolidation committee or Gaon Sabha were heard before passing the impugned order.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated 27.12.2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.
The writ petition stands allowed.
The case is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh on merit after hearing the petitioner and other affected parties in accordance with law.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.