Mahender Singh vs Deputy Director Consolidation, Haridwar & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

This writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.02.2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has moved the delay condonation application (CLMA No.8742 of 2019) along with the restoration application (MCC No. 582 of 2019) and has prayed that delay in filing the restoration application may be condoned.

Grounds shown in the affidavit are sufficient and bona fide to condone the delay in filing the restoration application. The delay condonation application (CLMA No.8742 of 2019) is allowed. Delay is condoned.

Heard on the restoration application (MCC No.582 of 2019).

The restoration application is allowed on the grounds urged. Order dated 23.02.2018 is hereby recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.1998, by which the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Roorkee has recalled its earlier order dated 27.04.1998. The petitioner was not a party in this proceeding. According to the petitioner, he was not heard before this order was passed and this order came to the knowledge of the petitioner only in the year 2003. Subsequently he filed a revision before the Deputy Director Consolidation, Haridwar which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director Consolidation on 17.12.2004 after condoning the inordinate delay made by the petitioner in filing the revision before him.

The fact of the matter is that after the "chaks" were allotted by the Consolidation Officer, appeals were filed by certain persons who were aggrieved by the allotment of "chaks" before the Settlement Officer and the Settlement Officer decided the said appeals vide its order dated 27.04.1998. Subsequently one of the persons moved an application for recalling the said order on ground that by the order dated 27.04.1998, he has been deprived to access to his land and thereafter the order dated 23.11.1998 was passed by the Settlement Officer, by which a pathway was given to these persons. Since the land of the petitioner was adjacent to it and he was affected by the said order, he filed a revision challenging the said order before the revisional authority. The revisional authority came to the conclusion that ultimately by the two orders the net land of the petitioner remains the same but what has happened by the order dated 23.11.1998 is that the access to the land has been given to certain tenure holders who were not having earlier any path which could lead to their land and they have to travel around four kilometers more in order to reach their land. Therefore, a part of the land of the petitioner has been taken from the land of the petitioner in order to make a chak road i.e. path by which a tenure holder can have an access to his land and in lieu of this, the land which was shown as "nali" and was of the Gram Sabha has been given to the petitioner. So ultimately the petitioner has not lost his land by this transfer and the order is also by and large in public interest as access has been given to the those persons who were not having the access to their land before.

The order passed by the revisional authority being in public interest and causes no loss to the petitioner and therefore this Court finds no ground for interference in the matter. The writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.