KRISHNA DUTT Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for private respondent Nos. 3, 9 and 10 as well as learned standing counsel for State respondents No. 1 and 2.

(2.) The petitioners have invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dtd. 5/6/2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 0111 of 2021 (Computerized Case No. 2021531653000111) reversing the order dtd. 7/10/2021 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 63 of 2021, whereby two impleadment/amendment applications dtd. 18/2/2020 under Order I, Rule 10(2) read with Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC filed on behalf of the contesting respondents in objections under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity UPCH Act) has been rejected.

(3.) The facts culled out from the record are that two separate objections dtd. 11/5/2018 (Annexure Nos. 2 and 3) under Sec. 9-A (2) of the UPCH Act have been filed by Trishul and Basant Lal and two others including Trishul, respectively viz. (i) Basant Lal and two others v. Kanhaiya Lal and others and (ii) Trishul v. Kanhaiya Lal and others. At a later stage, Basant Lal and seven others including previous three applicants have filed another objection dtd. 29/9/2018 (Annexure No. 4) under Sec. 9-A(2) of the UPCH Act in the nature of supplementary objection. Similarly, Trishul has filed another objection dtd. 28/10/2018 (Annexure No. 5) under Sec. 9-A(2) of the UPCH Act as well in the nature of a supplementary objection. The opposite parties in proceedings under Sec. 9-A(2) of the UPCH Act (petitioner herein) have raised objection qua maintainability of the subsequent objection dtd. 29/9/2018 and 28/10/2018 filed under Sec. 9-A(2) of the UPCH Act. In response thereto, Trishul and Basant Lal and two others have filed two separate applications dtd. 17/12/2019, respectively, with the prayer that their first objection dtd. 11/5/2018 may be treated as a main objection and subsequent objection may be treated as a supplementary objection. After due contest, the Consolidation Officer, vide order dtd. 11/2/2020 (Annexure No. 8), has rejected both applications dtd. 17/12/2019 and negated the subsequent objections on the grounds that it would promote multiplicity of proceedings, however, permitted to file amendment application if they wants to explain/clarify their case. The order dtd. 11/2/2020 passed by the Consolidation Officer became final between the parties, inasmuch as same has not been assailed before any competent court. In light of the order dtd. 11/2/2020, the contesting respondents Basant Lal and two others and Trishul have filed separate amendment applications dtd. 18/2/2020 (collectively filed a Annexure No. 9) under Order I, Rule 10(2) read with under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC, proposing amendment in their respective objections dtd. 11/5/2018 filed under Sec. 9-A(2) of the UPCH Act. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dtd. 7/10/2021, has rejected both the amendment applications dtd. 18/2/2020. The Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'DDC'), on revision being filed on behalf of Trishul assailing the order dtd. 7/10/2021, has quashed the order dtd. 7/10/2021 passed by the Consolidation Officer and allowed the amendment application dtd. 18/2/2020, vide its order dtd. 5/6/2024, which is currently under challenge before this court.