High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Irfaan & Others v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Saharanpur & Others - WRIT - B No. 44534 of 2006  RD-AH 13862 (21 August 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44534 of 2006
Irfaan & Others........Petitioners
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners.
The proceedings under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the ''Act') was finalized upto the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation in the year 1992. Thereafter, the petitioners purchased the land in dispute by means of a sale deed dated 11.3.1994. After purchasing the land in dispute, they moved an application for recalling the order dated 18.1.2001 passed in reference proceedings in pursuance to the orders passed under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioners also filed a revision against the appellate order dated 15.3.1989 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in proceedings under Section 9 of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the application to recall the order passed in reference proceedings as well as the revision on the ground that the proceedings under section 9 of the Act had already become final before the petitioners purchased the land and as such the same were not maintainable. A further finding has been recorded that purchase had been made after de-notification under Section 52 of the Act and the proceedings initiated by them thereafter were not maintainable.
There is no doubt about the fact that proceedings under Section 9 of the Act in respect of the land in dispute initiated by the vendors of the petitioner were finally decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 21.01.1992. Thereafter, reference proceedings were initiated in order to give effect to the said order was also finally decided on 18.1.2001. It is also undisputed that the petitioners purchase the land in dispute vide sale deed dated 11.3.1994. The petitioners having purchased the land in dispute after the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act were finalized against his vendors have no right to reopen the same. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly rejected his recall application as well as revision on the ground that the proceedings had become final much earlier.
In view of above, I see no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.