Mahendra Nath Singh and 2 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 17 Others

Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3978 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mahendra Nath Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 17 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar,Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Heard Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶2This is the second round of litigation.

¶3Petitioner has approached this Court earlier by way of filing Writ Petition No.845 of 1976 for quashing the revisional order dated 21.2.1976 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh in Revision Nos.56 and 57.

¶4This Court vide order dated 11.10.1995 allowed the aforesaid writ petition and order 21.2.1976 was set-aside and the mater was remitted back to decide afresh in accordance with law.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph nos.6 to 9 of the order passed by this Court.For reference same is mentioned hereinafter: "6. I have gone through very carefully all the three orders passed by the consolidation authorities. Unfortunately the Revisional Authority has recorded his finding by presuming that if the then landlords had transferred the lands to the extent of 1/3rd share in 1916 and thereafter surrendered their Sri lands in that event the respondents herein will derive 1/3d interest on the basis of decree passed with consent.

¶7Even assuming that the plots in question with references to their corresponding old plot numbers did not find any mention in the sale deed yet it was open for the revisional authority to record its finding on the basis of the compromise petition and other collateral evidence if it was shown by the respondents that these lands were parted away by the predecessor-in-interest of the writ-petitioners in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.4 to 7.

¶8In my view the Revisional authority ought to have perused the sale deed and other documentary and oral evidence and then recorded positive findings which not having been done I am left with no option but to set aside the impugned order and remit back revision nos 56 and 57 for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶9In the result this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.2.1976 is set aside and revision nos.56 and 57 are remitted back for fresh consideration in accordance with law."

¶6Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on remand, Revisional Authority has quoted the findings returned by the Consolidation Officer on the issue framed and thereafter without appreciating and considering the observations made by this Court has allowed the revision petition with the following observation and reasoning which is mentioned hereinafter: "उपररो्ሹ ननिररय कके अवलरोकनि सके स्प्ቖ हहै नक चकबन्ददी अधधिककारदी निके समस्त उपलब्धि सकाቌኚयोሱ कका सम्यक नवश्लकेषर करनिके कके बकाद तथ्योሱ एववं नवधधि व्यवस्थका कके आलरोक मम न्यकानयक मसस्तष्क कका ्ቚयरोग करकके आदकेश पकाररत नकयका, नकन्तत सहकायक बन्दरोबस्त अधधिककारदी चकबन्ददी दकारका उ्ሹ ्ቚककार कका नवश्लकेषर निहह नकयका गयका हहै। तथ्योሱ एववं नवधधि व्यवस्थका कके नवपरदीत आदकेश पकाररत नकयका गयका हहै। सहकायक बन्दरोबस्त अधधिककारदी चकबन्ददी कका आदकेश स्वकेच्छकाचकारदी हहै। इस्ቚ ककार सहकायक बन्दरोबस्त अधधिककारदी चकबन्ददी कका आदकेश नदनिकावंक-24.08. 1974 सस्थर रहनिके यरोग्य निहह हहै। उप सवंचकालक चकबन्ददी दकारका आदकेश नदनिकावंक

21.02.1976 सहदी पकाररत नकयका गयका हहै।"

¶7Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that aforesaid order is bereft of reasoning in consideration of factors mentioned in Section 48 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. He further submitted that observations made by this Court in aforesaid order were required to be considered by the Revisional Authority, but the same has not been done.

¶8In the aforesaid circumstances considering that above referred reasons given by Revisional Authority being illegal on face of it, therefore, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without issuing notice to the private respondents, since this Court is of a considered opinion that there could not be any argument contrary to above submissions and since this Court is proposing to remit case to the Revisional Authority to decide afresh, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents.

¶9In the aforesaid circumstances, impugned order dated 3.3.2022 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is set-aside and matter is remitted to Revisional Authority to decide afresh with specific observation that order shall be passed in terms of factors given in Section 48 of the Act of 1953 and taking note of the observations made by this Court in the earlier order.

¶10Aforesaid exercise shall be concluded within a period of six months from today.

¶11Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh is cautioned that the order passed by High Court and the observations made therein are required to be considered in accordance with law.

¶12With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 1.12.2023 SB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad