GURMEET SINGH Vs. DDC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Pradeep Kumar for the petitioner and Sri Ram Ji Mishra for the contesting respondents.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 13.02.2014, by which the revision has been allowed and orders of Consolidation Officer dated 13.03.2013 and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 15.07.2013 have been set aside and the matter has been remanded to Consolidation Officer for trial of the objection afresh, in accordance with law and after giving opportunity of evidence and hearing the parties, decide afresh, arising out of the proceedings under Section9 -A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) BOTH the objections were consolidated and tired by Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 15.03.2013 held that as the name of Gurmeet Singh was recorded over the land in dispute by the order of Naib Tahsildar dated 14.05.2002, which was not challenged by any of the parties in the competent court, as such, this Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the order dated 14.05.2002. On these findings, the objections filed by Kulvinder Singh as well as Balvinder Kaur were dismissed and the name of Gurmeet was recorded over the land in dispute. Smt. Balvinder Kaur filed an appeal from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by the order dated 15.07.2013, dismissed the appeal. Balvinder Kaur then filed a revision from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by the order dated 13.02.2014 found that the order passed by Naib - Tahsildar in the proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 did not operate as res -judicata and can be challenged in regular proceedings. The Consolidation Officer illegally dismissed the objection on the ground that order of Naib Tahsildar dated 14.05.2002, was not challenged by any of the parties in the competent court, as such, this Court has no jurisdiction to set aside the order dated 14.05.2002. The Consolidation Officer did not tried the other issues nor proper opportunity of evidence has not been given to the parties and the objection was decided on preliminary issues. On these findings, the orders of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation were set aside and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for deciding the case afresh after giving opportunity of evidence as well as hearing to the parties. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.