CHANDRIKA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a consolidation matter and is directed against on order of a learned single Judge of this Court by which he allowed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and quashed orders of the consolidation authorities contained in Annexures 4 and 10 attached to the writ petition and directed that the revisions in proceedings Under Section 12 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act which were dismissed by order contained in Annexure 4 be restored to their original numbers and disposed of in accordance with law. Facts which gave rise to the petition may briefly be stated. Respondent No. 7 to this appeal, Swami Dutt, who was the Petitioner in the writ petition, filed two objections Under Section 12 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of four plots mentioned in the writ petition situate in Village Bhainsai Koel, Pargana Hadha, Tahsil and district Unnao. These objections were allowed and he was held to be the sirdar of the said plots. The Appellant in this appeal, Chandrika, who was Respondent No. 7 in the writ petition, thereupon filed appeals which were allowed by an order dt. 12 -1 -1953. Swami Dutt then preferred two appeals before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao, who treated them as revisions Under Section 48 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (unamended) and he set aside the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation by his order dated 18 -7 -1963 and held that as publication Under Section 20 of the above Act had been made before the order of the Consolidation Officer, therefore, the proceedings Under Section 12 were to be stayed automatically. Swami Dutt then preferred objection Under Section 20 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (unamended) in respect of the above plots claiming to be the sirdar. This objection was eventually dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 8 -1 -1964. He thereupon preferred appeal against the aforesaid order but that also was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 14 -4 -1954. He then took the matter in revision but the revision also failed on 12 -6 -1964. He then applied before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for reopening the proceedings Under Section 12 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act which was stayed on 18 -7 -1963. While this application was still pending he came to this Court on 16 -9 -1964, with the writ petition mentioned above. Eventually this application was also rejected on 29 -9 -1964. He thereupon amended the writ petition in question. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition by following the decision of this Court in Ram Bharosey Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Uttar Pradesh at Fatehpur, 1964 AWR 424 and held that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation staying the proceedings was wrong. The present special appeal is directed against this order of the learned single judge.

(2.) THE Learned Counsel for the Appellant has conceded that the order of the learned single Judge is not incorrect on merits. He, however, assails the order of the learned single Judge on two grounds. Firstly, he points out that the learned single Judge has gone wrong in entertaining the petition and granting relief to Swami Dutt because the petition was belated. In this connection he points out that the impugned order was passed on 18 -7 -1963 and the writ petition was filed on 16 -9 -1964. There was thus about ten months delay in filing the petition. Secondly, he contends that in view of the findings of the consolidation authorities in proceedings Under Section 20, which decided the matter in favour of the Appellant, the learned single Judge should have refused to grant any relief to the Petitioner because it was not only unnecessary but had become futile. We are unable to accept either of the two contentions.

(3.) THE second point urged is equally without force. It is true that this Court is normally reluctant to grant a relief which is not an effective one but in the instant case we cannot say that after the case goes back to the appropriate authorities as directed by the learned single Judge what the decision will be. The question still is whether the decision given by the consolidation authorities in proceedings Under Section 20 will operate as res judicata or not in the decision of the objections Under Section 12. It cannot be said that the learned single Judge has granted a relief which is futile or unnecessary. In these circumstances, we feel that the order of the learned single Judge suffers from no legal infirmity. As such there is no force in this special appeal. It accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.