Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAI NARAIN & ANOTHER versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, GHAZIPUR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jai Narain & Another v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Ghazipur & Others - WRIT - B No. 35277 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13866 (21 August 2006)

 

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41872 of 2006

Jai Narain and Others ..........Petitioners

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation , Ghazipur

and Others..........Respondents

Connect with

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35277 of 2006

Jai Narain and Others ........Petitioners

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation  , Ghazipur

and others............Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

These are two connected writ petitions filed by the same petitioners arising out of the same dispute and hence are being disposed of by this common order.

Heard Sri  A. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

The facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under;

The petitioners claim to be original tenure holder of plot no. 652 which is stated to be situate adjacent to P.W.D. road. In the provisional consolidation scheme, the said plot was proposed in the chak of the respondent no. 4. Aggrieved, the father of the present petitioners filed an objection. The Consolidation Officer decided various objections of tenure holders of the village by common order dated 30.6.1990 and dismissed the objection filed by the father of the petitioners who went up in appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Several other tenure holders also filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer. It has been alleged in the petition that the appeal filed by the father of the petitioners was not decided by the appellate authority. However his chak was affected by decision in appeal filed by the other tenure holders. Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27.12.1991, the father of the petitioners filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Since the appeal filed by the father of the petitioners against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 30.6.1990 was not traceable as such he filed another appeal along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 4.10.2004 condoned the delay but dismissed the appeal on the ground that revision of the village had already been decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed vide order dated 23.6.2006 on the ground that an earlier revision filed by the father of the petitioner had already been decided. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.6.2006, the petitioners preferred writ petition no. 41872 of 2006. Writ petition no. 35277 of 2006 has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 30.6.2004 by which earlier revision filed by their father was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the appeal filed by the father of the petitioners was not decided by the appellate authority. The revision which came to be dismissed on 30.6.2004 was filed against the order passed on appeal of other tenure holders by which the chak of the petitioners was disturbed. However, the claim of the petitioners with regard to his original plot no. 652 which is valuable land situate adjacent to P.W.D. road has not been considered on merits either by the appellate authority or by the revisional court.

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

No material has been brought on record which may go to indicate that any appeal was filed by the father of the petitioners against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 30.6.1990 which is stated to have been misplaced. However, from a perusal of the grounds of revision filed by the father of the petitioners which was decided on 30.6.2004, it becomes clear that he had made a claim with regard to plot no. 652. A specific plea in this  regard was raised as ground no. 2 in memo of revision.  A perusal of the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation  dated 30.6.2004 goes to show that the claim of the petitioner with regard to plot no. 652 was considered and rejected.. The revision was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as being barred by limitation and it was held that after disposal of the appeals on 27.12.1991 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation the delivery of possession took place and the petitioners would have come to know about the changes in his chak but no revision was filed within time as such delay of 10 years in filing the revision is not liable to be condoned.

In view of above, there is no force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that his claim for allotment of original plot no. 652 has not been considered. Once his claim with regard to said plot had finally been adjudicated, the appeal and revision filed by him have rightly been dismissed on the ground that revision has already been decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In view of the same there appears to be no illegality in the orders dated 4.10.2004 and 30.6.2004 impugned in writ petition no. 41872 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed .

In writ petition no. 35277 of 2006, challenge has been made to the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.6.2004 and 23.6.2006 rejecting the application for recalling the order dated 30.6.2004. The recall application was dismissed on the ground that the order dated 30.6.2004 has been passed after hearing the parties as such the same is not maintainable. In so far as order dated 30.6.2004 is concerned, the revision was rightly dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as barred by limitation on the findings that about lapse of 10 years it cannot be believed that even after delivery of possession and final adjudication of appeals and revision in the year 1991 the petitioner would have not come to know of the orders. It has further been held by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that plot no. 652 was low lying as such the petitioner was initially not interest in allotment of the same in his chak however subsequently when the same was improved by the respondent the petitioners started proceedings to get the said plot allotted in his chak. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  there is hardly any scope for interference in the impugned order and writ petition no. 35277 is also liable to be dismissed.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, both the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.

Dt.21.8.2006


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.