DEVENDRA MOHAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Jeevan Prakash Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.N. Shukla for the respondent No. 4 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3. Learned standing counsel inspite of time having been granted has not filed any counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition be disposed of finally at this stage.

(2.) THE issue raised before this Court is that the proceedings before the Settlement Officer Consolidation under Section 5-C of the U.P.C.H. Act were without jurisdiction and as such the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed a manifest error by upholding the order dated 24.9.2009.

(3.) LEARNED standing counsel also supports the impugned order. Having heard learned counsel for the parties it is evident that no new constructions have been raised and which fact was not disputed. The real dispute is with regard to the possession of the constructions over the plot. The Settlement Officer Consolidation had no authority to pass an interim order on 24.9.2009 in relation to the constructions that were already in existence prior to the commencement of the consolidation operations. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has completely over looked this aspect of the matter and the facts existing on record. In such a situation it was a clear case with regard to a dispute relating to the possession of the constructions over the plot in question. The respondent is claiming possession and therefore it is open to the respondent to file a civil suit and pray for an injunction. The proceedings before the Settlement Officer Consolidation are without jurisdiction being coram non judice. LEARNED counsel for the respondent has been unable to point out any provision contained in Section 5(c) of the 1953 Act to support the authority of the Settlement Officer Consolidation to assume jurisdiction for the relief actually claimed. The writ petition deserves to be allowed.