High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Lallan Singh & Others v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Ballia & Others - WRIT - B No. 15407 of 2006  RD-AH 6748 (28 March 2006)
Court No. 28
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15407 of 2006
Lallan Singh and Others
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and Others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri Shyam Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Rahul Sahai appearing for the contesting respondents.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage itself.
The facts are that Khata no. 1175 -A was recorded in the name of Shiv Nath son of Hardwar and Dharm Dev son of Bramhdev. During consolidation operations, the Assistant Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 5.1.1988 in case no. 4106 on the basis of compromise entered between the parties and directed the name of petitioners no. 2 to 7 to be recorded as co-tenure holder. The name of Shiv Nath was also corrected as Shivji. Subsequently, a time barred objection under Section 9-A(2) of the Act was filed by the contesting respondents claiming to be bhumidhar in possession of the disputed Khata and to expunge the name of the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 22.1.1996 dismissed the objection filed by the respondents against which an appeal was filed. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 16.8.2003 allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer with a direction to consider the question of limitation and thereafter proceed to decide the case on merits. The appellate order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 8.2.2006 dismissed the revision.
It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the revision was confined only to the appellate order dated 16.8.2003 but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly and illegally set aside the order dated 5.1.1988 passed in case no. 4106 which had become final.
In reply, it has been conceded by Sri Rahul Sahai that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the order dated 5.1.1988.
I have perused the record of the writ petition and the impugned orders.
There is no dispute about the fact that the order dated 5.1.1988 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in Case No. 4106 had become final which was not challenged by any party. There is also no dispute about the fact that a revision was filed challenging the order dated 16.8.2003 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and said proceeding arose out of the objection under Section 9-A(2) filed by the contesting respondents with regard to khata in dispute. Since, the order dated 5.1.1988 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in Case No. 4106 was not the subject matter of dispute in the present proceeding as such the Deputy Director of Consolidation exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the same.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the part of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation setting aside the order dated 5.1.1988 of Assistant Consolidation Officer in Case No. 4106 is quashed. However, the rest of the order by which he has affirmed the appellate order dated 16.8.2003 remanding back the case to the Consolidation Officer and directed him to decide the case afresh is hereby affirmed.
The writ petition accordingly stands allowed in part.
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.