ABDUL MAZID Vs. AISHA BEGAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, for the review applicant and Sri A.S. Chaudhary for the petitioner, who is opposite party in the review petition. The writ petition was filed by Smt. Aisha Begum, challenging the order of DDC dated 11.2.2000, passed in the proceeding under Sec. 21 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. After hearing the parties, this Court by judgment dated 11.8.2003, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of DDC dated 11.2.2000 and reinstated the earlier order dated 9.9.1998. Now, Abdul Mazid, who was arrayed as respondents in the writ petition, has filed this review petition. In chak allotment matters, three revisions were filed before the DDC. Revision Nos. 2422 and 2423 were filed by Abdul Mazid (the review applicant) and Revision No. 2397 was filed by Smt. Aisha Begum (the petitioner). All the three revisions were decided by a common judgment of DDC dated 9.9.1998 and all the revisions were allowed. Thereafter, Abdul Mazid has filed a recall application for recalling the order of DDC dated 9.9.1998, passed in Revision No. 2397 (Smt. Aisha Begum v/s. State) on the ground that he was not impleaded as opposite party in the aforesaid revision and there was no order of consolidation of all the three revisions together, therefore, he could not raise any argument in this revision. After hearing the parties, the DDC at the stage of writing judgment, decided all the three revisions by a common judgment. Thus, without giving opportunity of hearing, the revision of Smt. Aisha Begum has been allowed.

(2.) The dispute between the parties is in respect of plot No. 420 (area 0 -7 -15 bigha) of village Chaupari, pargana Patti, district Pratapgarh. Half of its area was purchased by Abdul Mazid, while half of its area was purchased by Smt. Aisha Begum. Initially, the valuation of plot No. 420 was determined @ 90 paise. Smt. Aisha Begum was allotted a chak on a part of it, while an area of 0 -2 -10 bigha of this plot was reserved for extension of general abadi. Abdul Mazid did not raise any objection regarding determination of valuation of plot No. 420, either under Sec. 9 or under Sec. 20 of the Act. So far as Smt. Aisha Begum is concerned, her chak on plot No. 20 was challenged by others and SOC in the appeal, deleted the valuation of plot No. 420. The effect of the order of SOC would be that the share of Abdul Mazid in plot No. 420 was also kept as chak out. Smt. Aisha Begum challenged the order of SOC in revision. It may be mentioned that the revisions of Abdul Mazid, i.e. Revision Nos. 2422 and 2423 were also arising out of chak allotment proceeding. As all the three chak revisions were of the same village, as such, according to the provisions of Rule 109 -B of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, all the three revisions were heard together and decided by a common judgment of DDC dated 9.9.1998. The effect of the order of DDC in allowing the revision filed by Smt. Aisha Begum was that the valuation of plot No. 420, which was earlier determined @ 90 paise, was restored and its valuation has been added in the chak of Abdul Mazid also, according to his share. The contention of Abdul Mazid before DDC in the recall application was that there was no order of consolidation of the three revisions and he was not impleaded as opposite party in Revision No. 2397 (Smt. Aisha Begum v/s. State), as such, the order passed in it was ex -parte order. On these allegations, the recall application was filed and allowed by DDC by order dated 11.2.2000. Smt. Aisha Begum challenged the order dated 11.2.2000 in the writ petition. The writ petition was heard and decided by this Court by judgment dated 11.8.2003. This Court found that all the three revisions were consolidated by DDC and allowed after hearing the parties, thus, the argument that Abdul Mazid was not provided an opportunity of hearing, was not correct and the DDC had no jurisdiction to recall his earlier order dated 9.9.1998. On this finding, he allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 11.2.2000 and reinstated the order dated 9.9.1998.

(3.) Now, Abdul Mazid has filed this review petition for review of the aforesaid order. In the review petition, it has been stated that there was no order of consolidation of three revisions by the DDC, according to the provisions of Sec. 192 -A of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The order of DDC in so far as it was passed in the revision of Smt. Aisha Begum was concerned, it was ex -parte against Abdul Mazid and it had been rightly recalled by the DDC. However, this Court has illegally allowed the writ petition.