Arun Kumar and Others vs Board of Revenue U.P. and Others

Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2.

For the reasons to be recorded notices to opposite parties No. 3, 4 and 5 are dispensed with.

There is a small and very simple matter. There are two mutation cases bearing No. 648 ( Kailashi v. Mangali Prasad ) pending in the court of Tehsildar and 412/41/54/92/366 (Jokhu v. Ram Chander ) pending in the court of Naib Tehsildar. The Petitioner says that in both the cases the Petitioner is common litigant. In one of the case there is an order of the High Court for expeditious disposal. There is a Provision u/s 192(A) of the Land Revenue Act:

192-A. Consolidation of cases.- Where more cases than one involving substantially the same question for determination and based on the same cause of action are pending in one or more courts, they shall, on application being made by any party to the court to which the court or courts concerned are all subordinate, be consolidated in one court and decided by a single judgment. Such cases may be filed direct in the superior court.

The reasoning given by the Tehsildar is very strange. If the matters are decided expeditiously it will be a matter of appreciation by the High Court rather than the contempt. The Tehsildar has given a total misconceived finding.

The order of Board of Revenue dated 7.2.2011 as well as of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 31.12.2010 are hereby set aside. The Tehsildar is directed to consolidate both the cases and hear them expeditiously, say within a maximum period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.

With the above observation the writ petition is finally disposed of.