DURYODHAN Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties.

(2.) The facts of the case are that during the consolidation operations in the village, an objection was filed under Sec. 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') praying to chuck out plot no. 33/4 (area 0.20 hectare) from consolidation operations claiming that the plot was the abadi of the petitioner. The plot was not shown as abadi in C.H. Form-2A. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dtd. 25/2/1993, chucked out plot no. 33/4 from consolidation operations on the ground that it was situated on the east of abadi and was between two roads. Against the order dtd. 25/2/1993 passed by the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was filed by the respondents under Sec. 11(1) of the Act, 1953 and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dtd. 31/5/2001, set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. In his order dtd. 31/5/2001, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation reasoned that the order dtd. 25/2/1993 had been passed in a very cryptic manner which was evident from the fact that order did not indicate that any case was registered on the objections allegedly filed under Sec. 9-A (2) of the Act, 1953 and there was no endorsement by the Consolidation Officer on the objections. In his order dtd. 31/5/2001, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation also recorded the fact that the order dtd. 25/2/1993 was passed without issuing notice to any of the defendants in the case and was passed on the application of a person who had no right in plot no. 33/4. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a recall application for recall of the order dtd. 25/2/1993. The recall application was time barred. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dtd. 8/6/2004, recalled his previous order dtd. 31/5/2001 and restored the appeal to its original number on the ground that no Vakalatnama of the petitioner was available on the record and the proceedings in the appeal had not been signed by any counsel of the petitioner indicating that the petitioner had not been heard before passing the order dtd. 31/5/2001. Against the order dtd. 8/6/2004 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the respondents filed Revision No. 1373 under Sec. 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi, who vide his order dtd. 25/8/2004, allowed the revision and set aside the order dtd. 8/6/2004 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The order dtd. 25/8/2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) In his order dtd. 25/8/2004, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that the recall application filed by the petitioner was time barred and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had committed a material irregularity of law in recalling his previous order dtd. 31/5/2001 without condoning the delay in filing the recall application. In his order dtd. 25/8/2004, the Deputy Director of Consolidation further considered the merits of the different orders passed by the subordinate consolidation authorities referred above and held that the order dtd. 25/2/1993 passed by the Consolidation Officer was contrary to law and as the petitioner has been allotted a Chak on plot no. 33/4, according to his share, therefore, no material prejudice was caused to the petitioner by the order dtd. 31/5/2001.