RAM SAMUJH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Faujdar Rai learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri A.P. Singh learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the State. Sri M.N. Singh has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent No. 2.

(2.) This writ petition assails the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.4.2011 whereby proceedings under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act have been finalised holding that the entries in relation to the land in dispute in favour of the Petitioners appears to be forged. This fact has been recorded on the strength of the report of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 24.4.1990 and the report of the consolidation officials dated 13.11.2009.

(3.) The litigation has a chequered history inasmuch as earlier an order had been passed on 8.8.1991 in favour of the predecessor in interest of the Petitioner that came to be recalled on 28.8.1991. The predecessor in interest of the Petitioner Jamuna filed a Writ Petition No. 24959 of 1991 which was dismissed on 8.12.97 holding that opportunity is yet to be given and the matter is yet to be decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and therefore the order impugned does not deserve to be interfered with. The High Court clearly held that as the order yet to be passed on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner it was not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.