High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Avadh & Another v. The Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Ghazipur & Another - WRIT - B No. 39313 of 2006  RD-AH 13531 (17 August 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39313 of 2006
Ram Avadh and another
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri A. N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners.
By means of this petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.5.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur remanding the case back to the Consolidation Officer to be decided afresh.
Facts are that the objection filed by the petitioners under Section 9 A(2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short ''the Act') to record their names as co-tenure holders with the contesting respondent was allowed in part with respect to plots no. 227, 337 and 532 while the objection with regard to plot no. 190 was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 27.11.2004. Aggrieved, petitioners filed an appeal claiming their share in plot no. 190. The contesting respondent also filed an appeal challenging the order of the Consolidation Officer allowing the objection of the petitioners in respect of other plots. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 31.3.2006 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners while the appeal of the contesting respondent was dismissed. The contesting respondent went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who vide impugned order allowed the same and remanded the case back to the Consolidation officer.
Deputy Director of Consolidation while allowing the revision has recorded a finding that the Consolidation Officer has only considered the case of the parties with respect of plot no. 190 and there is absolutely no discussion with regard to other plots in dispute.
It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Settlement Officer Consolidation while allowing the appeal filed by the petitioners had considered the case of the parties with respect to all disputed plots.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
A perusal of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer goes to show that he has only considered the dispute and recorded finding only with respect to plot no. 190 and there is absolutely no discussion either of the facts or of evidence with regard to other plot and yet he allowed the objection filed by the petitioners with respect of the said plots. Appellate authority has also failed to consider this illegality committed by the Consolidation Officer while allowing the objection filed by the petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly set aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation and remanded the case back to be decided afresh. There is no infirmity in the impugned order of remand passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
The writ petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.