RAM CHANDRA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anup Kumar Srivastava, the counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.N. Tripathi, the counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 7.

(2.) The dispute between the parties in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Plot No. 149 and the share of the parties in the said plot. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 22.1.1994 passed in a case registered under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') decided that Ram Surat, i.e., the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 had 1A share in the disputed plot. The order dated 22.1.1994 was admittedly passed ex-parte against Ram Surat who claimed V share in the disputed plot. Against the order dated 22.1.1994, Ram Surat along with respondent no. 7 filed Appeal No. 1991 of 2000-2001 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was dismissed in default by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 25.6.2001. There is some dispute between the parties regarding filing of the appeal in as much as respondent nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 deny that Ram Surat or respondent no. 7 had filed any appeal against the order dated 22.1.1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer. However, in view of the reasons proposed to be given subsequently, the said dispute is not relevant for a decision of the present writ petition. After Ram Surat died, the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 being the heirs of Ram Surat along with Ram Samuj, i.e., the respondent no. 7, filed a recall application before the Consolidation Officer praying for recall of the order dated 22.1.1994 but the said recall application was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 9.11.2012 on the ground that the application was not maintainable as no substitution bringing the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 on record as the heirs of Ram Surat had been incorporated. Against the order dated 9.11.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the respondents filed Appeal No. 1807 against orders dated 22.1.1994 and 9.11.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer which was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 15.9.2017 and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation after setting-aside the order dated 9.11.2012 remanded back the matter to the Consolidation Officer to pass fresh orders on merits regarding the claim of the parties and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Aggrieved against the order dated 15.9.2017, the petitioners filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 21.2.2019. The orders dated 15.9.2017 and 21.2.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) It was argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the recall application filed by respondent nos. 4 to 7 before the Consolidation Officer was not maintainable in view of the order dated 25.6.2001 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissing in default the appeal filed by respondent no. 7 and the predecessor of respondent nos. 4 to 6. It was argued that in view of the aforesaid, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had acted illegally in remanding back the matter to the Consolidation Officer to decide the claim of the respondents on merits. It was argued that any such order could have been passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation only in Appeal No. 1991 of 20002001 after recalling the order dated 25.6.2001 and not in Appeal No. 1807. It was argued that before remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was bound to consider the maintainability of the recall application in light of the order dated 25.6.2001. It was further argued that the aforesaid question has also not been decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his impugned order and thus, the impugned orders are contrary to law and liable to be set-aside by this Court. Rebutting the argument of the counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.N. Tripathi, the counsel for the respondents has argued that respondent no. 7 or the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos. 4 to 6 had not filed any appeal against the order dated 22.1.1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer and therefore the recall application and subsequent appeal filed by the respondents, i.e., Appeal No. 1807 which was allowed by order dated 15.9.2017 was maintainable. It was argued by the counsel for the respondents that from a perusal of the memorandum of appeal alleged to have been filed by respondent no. 7 and the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos. 4 to 6 and annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit, it is evident that the appeal was filed against some order dated 22.4.1997 passed in some Case No. 1940 and was not filed against the order dated 22.1.1994. It was further argued that as the impugned order dated 15.9.2017 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was a remand order, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly refused to interfere in the same and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.