High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Bechau v. D D C - WRIT - B No. - 13156 of 1984  RD-AH 14989 (5 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Civil Misc.Writ petition No.13156 of 1984
Bachau & Others. Vs. Dy.Director of Consolidation & others
Hon. Janardan Sahai,J
The respondents 2 to 8 purchased the disputed plot no.365/2 from the recorded tenant Shyam Lal respondent no.9. The respondents applied for permission for raising constructions over the disputed land. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by an order dated 28.7.81 allowed the application under Section 5(1) ( c) (i) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. An application for recall of this order was filed by the petitioners who alleged that they are rightful tenure holders of the disputed land and objection under Section 9 of the Act filed by them is pending. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the application of the petitioners by the order dated 5.2.82. Against this order a revision was filed by the respondents and the said revision was allowed by the Dy.Director of Consolidation by order dated 15.6.84. This order is under challenge in the present petition..
I have heard Sri R.K.Tewari holding brief of Sri A.N.Bhargava counsel for the petitioners and S/Sri J.S.Bundela and N.K.Misra counsel for the respondents 2 to 9.
In his order dated 15.6.84 the Dy.Director of Consolidation found that during the period when the permission granted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was in operation i.e. before the order granting permission was recalled, the respondents had raised constructions. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the pendency of the objections under Section 9 of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act no permission to raise constructions could be granted to the respondents. Reliance is placed upon a decision of this court in Siddh Nath Singh Vs. Dy.Director of Consolidation 1990 RD, 275, in which it has been held that proceedings for grant of permission to raise constructions under the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act are summary proceedings and that unless the claims of the parties are determined under Section 9 of the Act the order granting permission would not come in the way of the rightful owner before the competent authority. It is not disputed by the petitioners' counsel that Shyam Lal respondent no.8 was not recorded in the basic year but what is submitted is that objections under Section 9 of the Act are pending. The order granting permission would not operate as a bar to the claim of the petitioners to be the rightful owner of the property. No provision has been referred to by the petitioners' counsel to the effect that an order granting permission during the pendency of the objection under Section 9 of the Act is illegal. Moreover the constructions have already been raised by the respondents. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the finding of the Dy.Director of Consolidation that the constructions have been raised is erroneous. The said finding is one of fact and is not vitiated by any error of law. Moreover order granting permission to the respondents to make constructions on the basis of their purchase from the recorded tenure holder is not illegal. However the grant of the permission would not affect the maintainability of the title proceedings instituted by the petitioner. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
wp 13156 of 84
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.