High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Kumar v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Farrukhabad & Others - WRIT - B No. 45309 of 2006  RD-AH 14207 (23 August 2006)
Court No. 28
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45309 of 2006
Ram Kumar .............Petitioner
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Farrukhabad,
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under;
After death of recorded tenure holder Vidyawati, respondent no. 3 applied for mutation of her name claiming to be sole heir of deceased. The Assistant Consolidation Officer allowed the application filed by respondent no. 3 and directed her name to be recorded in place of deceased Vidyawati. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation.He also filed an objection under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidaiton Of Holdings Act (for short the ''Act') for mutation of his name in place of deceased tenure holder Vidyawati, on the basis of a will said to have been executed in his favour. The Settlement Officer Consolidation consolidated both the appeals and vide order dated 31.5.2006 remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer to be decided afresh after affording opportunity of evidence and hearing to the parties. Aggrieved the petitioner went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed as not maintainable on 16.11.2005 in absence of the petitioner. He moved an application dated 2nd January 2006 for recall of the order on the ground that he could not appear on the said date due to illness of his son. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 31.5.2006 dismissed the recall application on the ground that since the revision was dismissed as not maintainable and the said order was passed on merits as such recall application is not maintainable.
The petitioner in effect is aggrieved by the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation remanding the case back to the Consolidation officer. No doubt the Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision as not maintainable in absence of the petitioner and his recall application has also been dismissed but learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the remand order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation.
The revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order of remand passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation which is interlocutory in nature, has rightly been dismissed even though in his absence.
In view of above, no interference is required in the impugned orders 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.