MOHD.SAKIL Vs. DISTRICT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that against the basic year entry of the plot in question an objection under Sec. 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") was filed for co-tenancy along with respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The aforementioned proceeding was registered as Case No. 1276 and consolidation vide order dtd. 4/7/2000 allowed the aforementioned title objection filed by petitioners for co-tenancy. Respondent No. 4 filed an application dtd. 27/8/2008 along with prayer for condonation of delay to recall the order dtd. 4/7/2000. Respondent No. 4 filed a transfer application to transfer the restoration proceeding. Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the transfer application vide order dtd. 16/10/2010 transferring the proceeding from the Court of Consolidation Officer, Dumariyaganj, Siddharth Nagar to the Court of Consolidation Officer, Soharatgarh Camp, Naugarh, Siddharth Nagar. Respondent No. 4 again filed a transfer application which was allowed vide order dtd. 31/5/2013 and transferred the proceeding from the Court of Consolidation Officer, Naugarh to the Court of Consolidation Officer, Dumariyaganj. Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 26/7/2021 passed the order dividing share of the parties. Appeal alleged to be filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dtd. 19/1/2022 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Revision filed by respondent No. 4 against the order dtd. 26/7/2021 was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dtd. 13/12/2022 and matter was remanded back before Consolidation Officer, Naugarh, which is still pending. Petitioners challenged the revisional order dtd. 13/12/2022 before this Court through Writ- B No. 275 of 2023, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 15/2/2023, accordingly, proceeding has started before Consolidation Officer. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following reliefs:

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the order dtd. 4/7/2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act, the instant proceeding under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act is abuse of process of law, as such, the pending proceeding should be quashed. He further submitted that against the revisional order dtd. 13/12/2022, writ petition filed by petitioners has been dismissed but petitioners cannot be stopped to raise legal plea regarding maintainability of the proceeding by way of instant petition.