LAL SAHAB Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

(2.) Heard Sri C.S. Agnihotri, the counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Tripathi, Advocate as well as Sri Yogesh Mishra, counsel for the respondents. Against the judgment and order dtd. 16/11/1996 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal Nos. 580, 581 and 582 registered under Sec. 21 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), the petitioner filed Revision Nos. 127/1996-97, 168/1996-97 and 167/1996- 97 on 29/1/1997. All the aforesaid revisions were consolidated by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and heard together. During the pendency of the aforesaid revisions, on 24/11/2001 a notification under Sec. 52(1) of the Act, 1953 was issued and published in the official gazette ceasing the consolidation operations in the village. The revisions were still not decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, i.e., respondent no. 1 and during the pendency of the aforesaid revisions, a sale deed dtd. 26/2/2009 was executed by respondent nos. 4 to 22 in favour of respondent nos. 23 to 28 transferring the disputed plots to respondent nos. 23 to 28. The respondent nos. 23 to 28 were not impleaded as opposite parties in the revisions. By order dtd. 29/3/2012, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed Revision Nos. 127/1996-97, 168/1996-97 and 167/1996-97. Subsequently, the respondents filed recall applications dtd. 11/5/2012 and 29/11/2012 praying for recall of the order dtd. 8/8/2013 alleging that the order dtd. 29/3/2012 was passed ex- parte against them and without giving them any opportunity of hearing. Both the recall applications were consolidated by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and heard together and decided by a common order dtd. 8/8/2013. The respondent no. 1 vide his order dtd. 8/8/2013 recalled his previous order dtd. 29/3/2012 and restored the revisions to their original number. Subsequently, by a common order dtd. 12/12/2013, the respondent no. 1 has dismissed the revisions filed by the petitioners. The revisions filed by the petitioners have been dismissed by respondent no. 1 on the ground that a notification under Sec. 52 of the Act, 1953 has already been issued ceasing the consolidation operations in the village and, therefore, the revisions were not maintainable and further any amendment in the chaks as made by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dtd. 16/11/1996 would adversely affect the other tenure holders in the village and further on the ground that the revisions had no merit and were liable to be dismissed. The order dtd. 12/12/2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) It is admitted that the revisions were filed by the petitioner on 29/1/1997 and, thus, before the notification issued under Sec. 52 of the Act, 1953 ceasing the consolidation operations in the village was issued. In view of the aforesaid and in view of Sec. 52(2) of the Act, 1953 and in view of the law laid down by this Court in Ram Bahadur & Anr. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharthnagar and Ors. 2006 (101) RD 11, the notification under Sec. 52 of the Act, 1953 did not affect the pending revisions and the said revisions had to be decided on merits and the Deputy Director of Consolidation was duty bound to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. The chaks allotted to the different tenure holders in the village were also subject to the orders to be passed under Sec. 48 of the Act, 1953. Thus, the opinion of respondent no. 1 as recorded in his order dtd. 12/12/2013 that the revisions were not maintainable and any amendment of chaks as allotted till the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation would adversely affect the other tenure holders of the village is vitiated by error of law which is apparent on the face of record. So far as the findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, i.e., respondent no. 1 that there was no merit in the revisions is concerned, a reading of the order dtd. 12/12/2013 shows that no reasons have been given in support of the aforesaid findings by respondent no. 1 and, therefore, the order dtd. 12/12/2013 to the said extent is a non-speaking order. In view of the aforesaid, the order dtd. 12/12/2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is contrary to law and is liable to be set- aside. The order dtd. 12/12/2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is, hereby, quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot, i.e., respondent no. 1 to decide Revision Nos. 127/1996-97, 168/1996-97 and 167/1996- 97 within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him after giving an opportunity of hearing to the interested parties.