High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Harish Chandra v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Revenue Deptt. U.P. & Others - WRIT - B No. 6816 of 2007  RD-AH 2063 (8 February 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6816 of 2007
State of U. P. and others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
Shorn of unnecessary details, facts relevant for the purpose of the case are as under:
Against revisional order dated 26.3.1974 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in chak allotment proceedings two writ petitions no. 3031 of 1974 and 3090 of 1974 were filed before this Court which were allowed in part vide order dated 30.10.1992 and the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide revision afresh after opportunity of hearing to all concerned. After remand made by this Court, dispute was decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 5.10.1999. Thereafter, an application was filed by petitioner for making necessary correction on the ground that amendment chart was not prepared in accordance with judgement which was allowed vide order dated 10.12.2002. In compliance of the said order, 'Parvana' was issued by Consolidation Officer on 13.5.2005. An application was moved by contesting respondents no. 3 to 5 before respondent no. 2 that order dated 13.5.2005 was passed by Consolidation Officer without any notice or opportunity of hearing to them and their chaks have been disturbed illegally. Deputy Director of Consolidation directed the said application to be registered, summoned the record and stayed operation of the order dated 13.5.2005. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.
It has been urged by learned counsel for petitioner that order passed by respondent no. 2 is illegal and the order dated 13.5.2005 was passed by Consolidation Officer under Rule 109-A of the Rules framed under the Act for implementation of the order which has become final between the parties.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
By means of impugned order, Deputy Director of Consolidation has only directed the case to be registered and summoned the record. No adjudication has yet been made on the allegations made by contesting respondents in the application. There can be no manner of doubt that allegations made by contesting respondents in their application require adjudication. In this view of the matter, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation summoning the record and staying operation of the order passed by Consolidation Officer dated 13.5.2005. Even otherwise, order challenge in the writ petition is an interlocutory order and it is well settled that normally writ petition is not to be entertained against interlocutory order.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order.
However, considering the facts and circumstances, Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the application filed by contesting respondents expeditiously, preferable within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him in accordance with law and opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.