High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Dharam Pal And Anr. v. D.D.C. Ghaziabad And Ors. - WRIT - B No. 19341 of 1997  RD-AH 6704 (1 December 2005)
Heard Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.5.1997 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the revision and restoration application of the petitioners as barred by limitation.
The facts are that against the proposed allotment of chak the father of the petitioners filed an objection which dismissed vide order dated 26.5.1971. Certain objections filed by other persons came to be allowed by the same order. The said order of the Consolidation Officer was challenged in appeals before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which were consolidated and decided vide order dated 19.9.1971. The father of the petitioners or the petitioners did not file any appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 26.5.1971. The order dated 19.9.1971 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was challenged by respondent no.5 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed vide order dated 1.1.1975.
It has been alleged that the chak of the petitioner was further disturbed by the said order. The petitioners filed an application dated 30.8.1994 for recalling the order dated 1.1.1975 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. They also filed a revision challenging the order dated 19.9.1971 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation. The restoration application was filed on the ground that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was an ex-parte order without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or his father. The revision challenging the appellate order dated 19.9.1971 was filed on the ground that pairvi was done by their father who died and since the petitioners were minor at that time and after attaining the majority they could not come to know about the order. It was only on 1.2.1996 the petitioners have come to know about the appellate order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 20.5.1997 dismissing the restoration application as well as revision as barred by time.
I have carefully perused the impugned order as well as record of the writ petition.
A categorical finding has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the order dated 1.1.1975 was given effect to and accordingly, the possession was delivered and as such it cannot be believed that the petitioners for such a long period could not come to know of the order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation refused to believe the explanation submitted by the petitioners for in-ordinate delay in filing the restoration application and the revision.
It cannot be believed that the order dated 1.1.1975 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation pertaining to allotment of chak would remain unexecuted for such a long period. The explanation was given by the petitioners that they came to know of the order on 1.2.1996 when the patwari informed them that the land in dispute is not included in their chak but falls in the chak of respondent no.5. This explanation is totally unbelievable and has rightly been disbelieved by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
I see no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order passed is not liable to any interference by this court.
The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.