High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Nageshwar & Others v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Mau & Others - WRIT - B No. 29336 of 2007  RD-AH 11166 (4 July 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29336 of 2007
Nageshwar and another
Deputy Director of Consolidation and others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri Hari Om Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ali Hasan appearing for contesting respondents.
Dispute relates to plots no. 170 and 171. Proceeding under Rule 109-A was initiated by the petitioners for mutation of their names in the revenue records on the basis of an alleged order dated 5.6.1984 said to have been passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 69 which was allowed vide order dated 14.11.1991 on the basis of the report submitted by the consolidation authorities. Orders dated 5.6.1984 as well as 14.11.1991 were challenged by respondent no. 3 by filing an appeal. Settlement Officer Consolidation finding that the alleged order of Consolidation Officer dated 5.6.1984 was not brought on record and the record of case no. 69 was not available in the record-room nor there was any entry with regard to said case in GOSWARA allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer with direction to trace out the original record and pass afresh order after notice and opportunity of hearing to the parties. The said order was challenged by the petitioners in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 22.2.2007 not only allowed the revision but further also set aside the orders dated 23.9.1991 and 14.11.1991 directing incorporation of the order dated 5.6.1984 in the revenue records. Aggrieved petitioners have approached this Court.
It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that once the Settlement Officer Consolidation remanded the case back with direction to trace out the file and to pass afresh order, Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly and illegally set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 5.6.1984 without making any enquiry and without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to address the issue on merits.
In reply, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has tried to justify the impugned order.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.
It is undisputed that the Settlement Officer Consolidation summoned the record of case no. 69 wherein the alleged order dated 5.6.1984 is said to have been passed in favour of the petitioners. However, a report was submitted by the record-room that the record of the case was not available nor there was any entry in the GOSWARA register. The same finding of fact has been confirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Since there is no trace of the record of alleged case no. 69 it is clear that the order dated 5.6.1984 said to have been passed therein the implementation of which was being sought by the petitioners was forged and fabricated. In this view of the matter, Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly modified the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation remanding the case back on the ground that once the record is not there and no such case as alleged was ever filed, there was no justification for remand of the case for afresh adjudication. Further he also rightly set aside the orders dated 23.9.1991 and 14.11.1991 passed in proceedings under Rule 109-A. I find no illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Date : 4.7. 2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.