FERU Vs. COMMISSIONER CONSOLIDATION LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case furnishes a speaking instance of how the paradox of "Litigant Interest is Supreme" coined in the mid seventies by the Judiciary is being observed is consolidation courts having all the trappings of a court of law resulting in compelling a hapless litigant to knock every door in the hierarchy seeking redressal of his grievance but to no avail. Having endured all the odds and travails for three years, the petitioner has finally landed in this Court by means of the present petition.

(2.) A brief resume of necessary facts is that the petitioner was allotted chaks in his original holdings at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer including Chak comprising in plot No. 774. In plot No. 774 which comprises in his original holding, it is alleged, is installed tube -well of the petitioner - the only source of irrigation to his crops. The opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 who were also allotted chaks at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Baghpat/Meerut, in which their main plank was that they be allotted single chak instead of two chaks in their original holdings. It is alleged that the petitioner also preferred an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation seeking transfer of appeal from the end of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Since, in the meantime, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation stood transferred, the Deputy Director, Consolidation confined its order to the direction to the new Settlement Officer, Consolidation to decide the appeal. It is alleged that the petitioner was not notified about the date nor was served with any notice and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation proceeded to give verdict in appeal by means of the order dated 10.6.1999 which leaned in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The necessary consequence of this decision in appeal, according to the allegations in the petition, was that it affected the original holdings of the petitioner besides depriving him of his only source of irrigation. It would further transpire from the allegations in the petition that since the order passed was ex parte, the petitioner preferred restoration application and at the same time, approached this Court by means of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court, by means of the order dated 14.8.2002, disposed of the petition appended with directions to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to decide the restoration application within two months. In the meantime, aggrieved by the way ward manner of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, there was up -swell of opinion in the village against the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Baghpat/Meerut and the entire village represented to the Commissioner, Consolidation, U. P., Lucknow, for transfer of cases pending before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Baghpat/Meerut, to another district as a consequence of which orders were passed to transfer the cases pending in the Court of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Baghpat/Meerut, to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bulandshahr. Since the restoration application was not decided within the stipulated time in terms of the directions contained in the order of this Court, the petitioner again approached this Court and this second petition of the petitioner came to be decided with the direction to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation concerned to decide the restoration application with expedition. In the post -disposal stage of the writ petition, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 moved an application seeking modification in the order to the effect that the order should be restricted to the matter concerning the petition pending before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, As a consequence, the order was accordingly modified by means of the order dated 13.12.2002, Before the order of the Court could be complied with by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bulandshahr, the cases were again ordered to be transferred to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Baghpat/Meerut, vide order dated 10.12.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, U. P., Lucknow. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, fixed 18.12.2002 and thereafter, 21.12.2002 and on 24.12.2002, he passed the order rejecting the application for restoration. It is alleged by the petitioner that this order too was passed without affording opportunity of hearing and that the order was passed on 24.12.2002 which was not one of the working days in the week prescribed for Settlement Officer, Consolidation at Baghpat/Meerut.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also drew my attention to the order dated 10.12.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, U. P., Lucknow, thereby directing to transmit the records to the Settlement Officer. Consolidation, Bulandshahr and lamented that it was never transmitted to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bulandshahr on account of connivance by the ministerial staff and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Baghpat/ Meerut, who were in league with the respondents. The statement of Lekhpal has been annexed as Annexure -19 to the petition to hammer home the point that Settlement Officer, Consolidation, acted as an obstacle in the way of compliance with the directions contained in the order of the Commissioner, Consolidation, U. P., Lucknow. He also submitted that the order rejecting the application for restoration was passed on 'dies non' (non -working day) i.e., 24.12.2002 was not the day prescribed for functioning of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Baghpat/Meerut, it is a manifestation that the officer was guided by oblique motive. The assertion to this effect is embodied in para 38 of the writ petition. I checked the counter -affidavit for reply to this assertion and it would appear that this assertion has not been repudiated. The learned counsel also drew attention of the Court to the assertion made in para 42 of the writ petition, the text of which is that in the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 24.12.2002, one Dharam Pal, advocate is enumerated as counsel who argued the case on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner never engaged this advocate as his counsel. I tried to ascertain the veracity of this assertion from the counter -affidavit and it appears that the assertion has not been specifically refuted save saying that Annexure -24 filed in support of this assertion seemed to be forged one.