MANGAL Vs. D D C & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Mishra, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Purushottam Mani Tripathi, counsel for respondent no. 3 and the Standing Counsel who represents respondent nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) Petitioner no. 1 and one Buddhan are the sons of deceased Rameshar. Respondent no. 3 and one Ram Avtar are the sons of deceased Sukhari. The dispute between the parties relates to Khata No. 310. In the revenue records, Sukhari and subsequently respondent no. 3 and Ram Avtar were recorded as co-tenure holder in the aforesaid Khata No. 310. During the consolidation operations held in the village, the petitioner along with his brother Buddhan filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer stating that the name of respondent no. 3 and Ram Avtar was wrongly recorded in the revenue records relating to the basic year and their names be deleted and the name of the petitioner and Buddhan be recorded as sole khatedar of Khata No. 310. The said application was filed on 13.5.1986 and was highly belated. On the aforesaid application dated 13.5.1986, Case No. 1920 was registered in the court of Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'). The Consolidation Officer vide his judgment and order dated 18.11.1999 dismissed Case No. 1920 after recording his finding that the facts explaining the delay in instituting the aforesaid case were not correct and therefore the application was liable to be dismissed. Against the judgment and order dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act which was registered as Revision No. 637/676 in the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1. The Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1 vide his judgment and order dated 13.2003 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. The orders dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Consolidation Officer and 13.2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation have been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that the Consolidation Officer i.e. respondent no. 2 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1 have taken a very technical stand in dismissing the objections of the petitioner and should have considered case on merits as the matter related to the title of the petitioner over the disputed plots. It has been further argued by counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 2 had failed to exercise his jurisdiction as provided under Section 9-A (2) of the Act, 1953 by refusing to hear the objections of the petitioner on merits and for the aforesaid reason the judgment and orders dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Consolidation Officer and 12.2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are liable to be set-aside.