Rishipal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Order dated: 12-11-2002: "उ्ሹ नववमेचनरा कमे अनपुसरार नत्थगू चकदरार 348 ककी ननगररानवी बलहवीन हदोनमे कमे करारण ननरस्त ककी जरातवी हह प्ቔरावलवी बराद अमलदररामद दरालखल दफतर हदो।"

¶7Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage further submitted that effect of rejection of Revision Petition No.129 on amended chak table was not taken note of and no further amended chak table was prepared. It was neither mentioned in order passed in revision petition no.129 nor whether it would have effect on amended chak table.

¶8In aforesaid circumstances since petitioner's chak was affected, he filed a restoration application, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.11.2002 and it was clarified that said order has not made any affect on allotment of chak of the petitioner.

¶9The petitioner has filed an application under Rule 109 (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 for complying the order dated 16.2.2000 (after connected revision was later on dismissed) which was disposed of vide order dated

24.3.2015 with direction to decide the same expeditiously with an observation that petitioner's chak was prior to the order dated

16.2.2000 therefore, liable to be restored and he was entitled for demarcation of chak as well as delivery of possession over it.

¶10Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite aforesaid clarification, direction and observation, the Consolidation Officer concerned has rejected above referred application vide order dated 14.8.2015 by observing that since revision petition no.129 has already been rejected vide order dated

12.11.2002, therefore, there is no order to comply with. However, despite taking note that order qua to revision petition no.3 still exists, no reference was made of it in the said order nor it was mentioned that there was any ambiguity.

¶11Counsel for petitioner further submits that aforesaid approach was perpetuated by Appellate Authority and by the Revisional Authority.

¶12From the above it is clear that Deputy Director of Consolidation, while rejecting the revision petition no.129 vide order dated 12.11.2002, ought to have clarified the effect of common order passed on 16.2.2000, whereby a common order, both the revision petitions i.e. revision petition nos.3 and 129 were allowed and the amended chak table was prepared. However, no such clarification was incorporated in the order, therefore, ambiguity perpetuated.

¶13Learned Standing Counsel submits that such ambiguity may be removed and appropriate direction/ order may be passed by this Court, in this regard.

¶14In the aforesaid circumstances in order to remove aforesaid ambiguity and to give clarity to the amended chak table, petitioner is granted an opportunity to file a restoration/clarification application in both the revision petitions nos. 129 and 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to consolidate both the restoration applications and pass an order clarifying position in respect of amended chak table related to petitioner, so that it would be clear as to whether petitioner's chak was affected or not and in case it was affected, the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall clarify as to what would be the position of the allotted chak.

¶15The petitioner undertakes to file a restoration/clarification application within a period of three weeks from today and Deputy Director of Consolidation will decide both the restoration/clarification applications within a period of 8 weeks thereafter.

¶16It is made clear that restoration/clarification applications would not be dismissed on ground of maintainability and all legal consequence of order passed in restoration/clarification applications, will follow and in case any chak is affected in amended chak table, it would give a fresh cause of action to the petitioner to file an application under Rule 109 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rule, 1954.

¶17With the aforesaid direction/observation, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 31.10.2023-SB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3675 of 2023 Petitioner :- Rishipal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Pal Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Jitendra Pal Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.C. Nishad, learned Standing Counsel. 2. How an ambiguity is created and perpetuated in subsequent proceedings would be explicit in facts of present case. 3. In present case, it is not under dispute that petitioner before this Court was not a party in the two revision petitions bearing Nos.3 and 129 filed by respondents and others. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards order dated 16.2.2000 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby both the aforesaid revision petitions were allowed and amended chak table was prepared. Relevant part of the order is mentioned hereinafter: "ददोनोሪ ननगरराननयरााሱ स्ववीकरार ककी जरातवी हह। साሱल्ሿ तराललकरा लजस पर ममेरमे हस्तरा्ቌर हह, आदमेश करा अाሱग हदोगवी। साሱशदोलधित आकरार प्ቔ 23 नवतररत नकयरा जरावमे। स्थल पर सवीमरााሱकन नकयरा जरावमे । बराद अमलदररामद प्ቔरावलवी दरा०द० ककी जरावमे । यहवी आदमेश नन० साሱ० 129 पर भवी लरागगू हदोगरा। " 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court that subsequently restoration application was filed in one of the Revision Petition i.e. No.129. Said restoration application was allowed vide order dated 25-07-2001. 6. Later on, aforesaid Revision Petition was rejected vide order dated 12.11.2002. Both the orders are mentioned hereinafter: "Order dated: 25-07-2001: "शवी नघिस्सरा पपु्ቔ मक्खन ननवरासवी-जहरानराबराद बवी०ए० दराररा ्ቚस्तपुत पपुनरस्थरापन्ቚ राथरनराप्ቔ नदनरााሱनकत 6-3-2000 स्ववीकरार नकयरा जरातरा हह तथरा ननगररानवी साሱ० 129 मम पराररत आदमेश नदनरााሱक 16-02-2000 ननरस्त नकयरा जरातरा हह। प्ቔरावलवी गपुण ददोष कमे आधिरार पर सपुनवरायवी हमेतपु नदनरााሱक 01-08-2001 कदो ्ቚस्तपुत ककी जरायमे। गराम अनभलमेख तलब नकयमे जरायमे ।"