Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Laut v. The D.D.C. And Others - WRIT - B No. 2673 of 1983 [2006] RD-AH 14552 (28 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).


Court No.27


Ram Lout .............................................Petitioner.


Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and others .............................................................Respondents.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard Sri Ravindra Nath Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri H.N. Shukla, Advocate, appearing for the contesting respondent.

The order dated 27.11.1982 passed by the respondent no.1 in two revision nos. 648 and 758 under Sections 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is impugned in the instant writ petition.

Proceedings under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of Chak No. 39 recorded in the name of Khelawan gave rise to the present dispute. Khelawn died on 21.1.1982, who was issueless. A mutation application was preferred by the petitioner before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and summons were issued. According to the petitioner, after compliance of the provisions of Rule 25-A of Rules framed under the Act, an order was passed on 2.4.1982.  This order was challenged by the contesting respondent in two revisions, which have been decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.  Case has been remanded before the Consolidation Officer with a direction that after giving appropriate opportunity to the respective parties to adduce evidence, claim may be decided in accordance with law.  It appears that while mutation proceedings were pending before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, a compromise was entered into between the parties, whereas proceedings before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order dated 5.2.1981 passed by the S.O.C. was pending. So called compromise was denied by the contesting respondent. It is alleged that the said compromise was collusive one to which the contesting respondent was not a party.  The Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded finding that the compromise was beyond his jurisdiction and without following the Rule 25-A of Consolidation of Holding Rules. Specific reasons were given as to why  compromise could not be relied upon specially when the entire procedure of compromise was carried out in one single day. Revision 851/2605 was pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and during pendency of the said revision, a collusive compromise was entered into between the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to assail the impugned judgment that the revisional court without condoning the delay entertained the revision especially when no appeal was filed.  He has cited a number of decisions to show that without condoning the delay, the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have entertained the revision besides no appeal was filed.  Citations relied upon by Sri Ravindra Nath Rai, Advocate, is Smt. Somana (D.) through LRs. Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation Basti and others 2003 (1) A.W.C. page 691, Faujdar Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and others 2002 (93) R.D. 231, Ragho Singh Vs. Mohan Singh and others 2000 (91) page 689.

Sri H.N. Shukla, Advocate, has also cited a decision in the case of Kedar Rai and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and others 1991 Revenue Judgments page 449, wherein order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer was passed on the basis of compromise, to which the respondent no.2 was not a party and the said compromise was foundation of the respective claim.  The compromise was challenged and the Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the order and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for deciding it afresh.

I have heard arguments of counsels for the respective parties at length and gone through the record. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has power to call for record of any case if he has reason to believe that the Officer by whom the case was decided appears to have exercised jurisdiction not vested or has failed to exercise jurisdiction and substantial illegality and irregularity has been done. It is clear that the revisional court has not decided any question on merit but has remanded the matter before the competent authority to decide it in accordance with law.  Only observation has been made that so-called compromise was not in confirmation with the procedure laid down and also provision of Rule 25-A of Consolidation of Holdings of Rule was not followed. On the face of these findings, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was of the view that the compromise is not reliable and sent the entire matter for reconsideration. I do not find any illegality whatsoever in the impugned judgment. The Assistant Consolidation Officer could not have passed an order in a hurried manner as it has been done in the instant case without proper notice that too on the basis of compromise to which contesting respondent was not a party.

In view of what has been discussed above, there is no merit in the instant case, the writ petition is dismissed.

Dt. 28.8.2006



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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.