MATA SEWAK Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Chandra Shekhar Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Dan Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 7, Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent Gaon Sabha and Mr. Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard finally at the admission stage without inviting counter-affidavit.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that Plot Nos. 471 and 478 area 3.28 acre were given to the Pherai and Tehuli on 18/9/1950 by Bechan with permission of Zamindar. Tehuli was unmarried and died issueless in the year 1958. In the first Consolidation operation, which took place in the year 1962, the name of Bechan was recorded accordingly Assistant Consolidation in case No. 3929 ordered to record the name of Pherai in respect to plot No. 471 area 2.54 acre and plot No. 478 area 0.74 acre. The name of Pherai was accordingly recorded in C.H. Form 11, 41 and 45. In C.H. Form 45 new plot Nos. 399 and 405 were mentioned from old plot Nos. 471 and 478. The village was denotified under Sec. 52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act" on 3/8/1968. Second Consolidation operation started in the village in the year 2002 and the Sec. -9 of U.P.C.H. Act was made on 30/1/2002. In basic year Tirathraj and Aditya Nath were recorded over pot Nos. 399 and 405 area 3.28 acre. Against the basic year entry, time barred title objection under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed on 31/8/2009 by contesting respondents in which report was submitted by Assistant Consolidation Officer on 29/9/2009. An appeal has also been filed by contesting respondents challenging the order dtd. 27/2/1963 passed during first consolidation operation in Case Nos. 3928 and 3929. The aforementioned appeal was registered as Appeal No. 2361 and 2022-23 under Sec. 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act and the same was allowed vide order dtd. 2/3/2023 after granting benefit of Sec. -5 of Indian Limitation Act as well as setting aside the order dtd. 27/2/1963 and remanded the matter before Consolidation Officer to decide the objection afresh on merit. Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 12/4/2023 granted benefit of Sec. 5 of Limitation Act in filing title objection under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act and fixed case for evidence of parties. Petitioners filed revision against the order dtd. 2/3/2023 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal and order dtd. 12/4/2023 passed by Consolidation Officer condoning delay in filing the title objection, the revision filed against the order dtd. 2/3/2023 was registered as Revision No. 1360 of 2023-24. Revision filed by petitioners against the order dtd. 12/4/2023 was registered as Revision No. 1769 of 2023-24. Petitioners filed application dtd. 16/12/2023 in aforementioned revision for summoning the record of Case No. 563 under Sec. 9-A (2) (Santosh v. State). Against the application dtd. 16/12/2023 filed by petitioners answering respondents have filed their objection dtd. 2/3/2024 stating that Hon'ble High Court has issued direction for expeditious disposal of Case No. 563 under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act in Writ No. 1628 of 2023 vide order dtd. 28/4/2023 as such the application filed by revisionist for summoning the record of the proceeding under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act is liable to be rejected. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 9/4/2024 rejected the petitioners' application dtd. 16/12/2023 on the ground that this Court has directed in Writ-B No. 1628 of 2023 for deciding the title objection under Sec. 9-A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act within specified period, hence this writ petition for following relief: