Indrasan Singh v. D.D.C. and Others

Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 14464 of 1993 Petitioner :- Indrasan Singh Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.N. Tripathi,Gopal Narain,Harishchandra Dubey,Narayan Dutt Shukla,Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi,Shyam Narain Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,J. Sahai Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri N.D. Shukla, Advocate for petitioner and Sri A.K. Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-Respondents. None appeared on behalf of contesting-respondents despite due service.

¶2This is a case arising out of proceedings under Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1953").

¶3In pursuance of a reference submitted by concerned authority the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia after hearing rival parties held that there was a purported agreement between parties which was an issue before Consolidation Officer, however, since there was no specific finding on it, the matter was remitted back to Consolidation Officer to pass order after considering the effect of compromise.

¶4Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner vehemently contended that power to decide reference under Section 48(3) of Act, 1953 lies only with Deputy Director of Consolidation and in case there was a dispute amongst the report submitted by Consolidation Officer as well as report submitted during pendency of reference, the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have decide the case on merit itself. He further submits that in the later report which has been considered by Deputy Director of Consolidation it was indicated that compromise appears to be not genuine and he refers following paragraphs of impugned order: "

जहहहतकसहहयकचकबनददअधधकहरदककररपपररवरहमहजहयहदवककबयहनकह

पशनहह,

उनममसमझझतहककसथलततधथएवहअमलदरहमदकरनकककपशनपरपरसपर

तवरपधहभहसहह।इससकभदसपषहपतहहहतकसमझझतहहहआयहनहद,

यहसननदगधहह।

सहहयकचकबनददअधधकहरदनकअपनकबयहनममयहकहहहहतकउनहपनकसमझझतह

करहयहहहतथहइनदहजसमझझतकककअननसहरहह।चकबनददनयहयहलययममतवशकषकर

सहहयकचकबनददअधधकहरदककनयहयहलययककपतहवधलययककदहधखलमकयहसमभव

हपसकतहहहतकसमझझतहहहआहपतपपतहवलददहधखलदफतरनहहयदहप।खहतह

सहखयह62

ककआ०पत4

ककपततधलतपदहधखलककगयदहहधजसमकखहतहसह०62 कक

सतमभ5

ममखहतहसकइनदहजइनदहसनकककहनहमखहररजहपनहबतहयहगयहहह

तथहसतमभ8

मकयहवहदच०अ०कपसनदतभरतकरनककहउलकखहह।खहतहसहखयह

ककसमबनधममयहबतहयहगयहतकजमनहसकमनकदमहचलहधजसमकआरहजदसहयनक

रपसकमनररसयककसमयककपहयदगयद।तथहजमनहकहदहवहखहररजहहआ।यकदप

पररनसथततयहहऐसदहहजपयहसनदकहपहदहकरतदहहतकइनदहजकहनहमतनहहहपनककक

बहबतचकबनददअधधकहरदककनयहयहलयनकपहरहतभकसतरपरतववहदचलहथहतथह

यतदइसकहतनसतहरणसहहयकचकबनददअधधकहरदककयहहहसमझझतकककधहरहनहद

हहआतपइसकहतनसतहरणहपनहचहतहयक।अततइससनदभरमकचकबनददअधधकहरदव

ब०अ०च०ककआखयहककआधहरपरसनदभरअननमपतदतकरनककहऔतचतयनहहहह।

तथहपतहवलदचकबनददअधधकहरद, अननतम, अतभलकख, रहमपनर,

बधलयहकपइस

तनदकशककसहथपतयहवततरतककजहतदहहतकवकखहतहसहखयह62 व2

ककबहरकमकबनहयक

गयकवहदपरदपनयपकयककसहकयलकनकककउपरहहतगनण-

दपषककआधहरपरतवधधपपवरक

तनसतहरणकरमऔरवहदककतनसतहरणककउपरहनतहदसनदभरककबहबतकहयरवहहद करम।"

¶5Learned Senior Advocate submits that in aforesaid circumstances the matter be remitted to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide case on merit.

¶6Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents submits that above referred findings appears to be self contradictory, therefore, matter has to be remitted back to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide case on merit.

¶7Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

¶8As referred above, the dispute is with regard to a purported agreement on the basis of report submitted during pendency of reference and since agreement itself has been disputed, therefore, reasons given by Deputy Director of Consolidation to remit the case do not appear to be legally sustainable. Even otherwise, on the basis of said report the decision ought to have been taken by Deputy Director of Consolidation itself instead of remitting case to Consolidation Officer, which appears to be an incorrect approach.

¶9In aforesaid circumstances and in the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 18.02.1993 is set aside. Matter is remitted back to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide case on merit after hearing rival parties in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from today, if there is no legal impediment.

¶10With aforesaid direction/ observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 22.11.2023 AK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad