Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUKHBIR SINGH versus D.D.C. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sukhbir Singh v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 13459 of 1989 [2005] RD-AH 6083 (21 November 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Heard Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.R.Shivhare, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 & 4.

This writ petition arises out of chak allotment proceeding. The dispute relates to plot no. 40 situate in village Nagla Goverdhan, Pargana Hasangarh, Tehsil Iglas district Aligarh which was jointly owned by the petitioner and his brothers respondent nos. 2 to 6. The disputed plot being abadi was kept out of consolidation. During chak allotment proceedings respondent no.2 Mohan Singh, the brother of the petitioner filed revision no. 130. In the said proceedings he got the exchange ratio of the said plot fixed at .90 paise and got it allotted in his chak vide order dated 13.3.1985. On having come to know of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner moved an application to recall the order dated 13.3.1985 on the ground that he was serving in the army and he was not impleaded as a party in the proceedings and the said order was an ex-parte order. Vide order dated 22.3.1986 the Joint Director of Consolidation allowed the application of the petitioner and recalled the order dated 13.3.1985. The revision was heard again by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and vide order dated 17.6.1989 again maintained the order dated 13.3.1985.

It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the order dated 13.3.1985 fixing the exchange ratio of the disputed plot was recalled it was not open to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to again fix the exchange ratio of the said plot and allot the same in the chak of respondent no.2. It has further been urged that the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order that earlier order dated 13.3.1985 fixing the exchange ratio of the disputed plot was passed on the basis of the consent given by all the brothers is based on total misreading as the petitioner was neither a party in the said proceedings nor ever gave his consent.

In reply it has been urged by learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 4 that by the impugned order substantial justice has been done between the parties and as such, no interference is called for in the impugned order.

I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The order dated 13.3.1985 fixing the exchange ratio and allotment of the disputed plot in the chak of respondent no.2 was set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party to the said proceedings and it was an ex-parte order. After recalling the order fixing the exchange ratio of the disputed plot, the revision was fixed for rehearing. The Deputy Director of Consolidation again heard the matter and maintained the order dated 13.3.1985.

While passing the impugned order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that the order dated 13.3.1985 was passed on the basis of the consent of all the parties and as such the exchange ratio was rightly fixed and there is no justification to keep the said plot out of consolidation proceedings. The aforesaid finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is totally misconceived. It is not in dispute that the disputed plot is an abadi and was kept out of consolidation. It was only at the revisional stage the exchange ratio of the said plot was fixed and it was allotted in the chak of respondent no.2.Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the said proceedings and there was no occasion for him to give his consent. Even otherwise, a perusal of the order dated 22.3.1986 goes to show that the order dated 13.3.1985 fixing the exchange ratio of the disputed plot was recalled and the same became final. The impugned order maintaining the exchange ratio of the disputed plot amounts to review of the said order for which the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction.

From the aforesaid, it is clear that the impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is patently illegal and without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.

The writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 17.6.1989 is hereby quashed.

The dispute is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for decision afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made hereinabove. Singh the matter has remained pending for a long time the Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the dispute as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this before him by either of the parties.

However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.