Ram Manohar vs Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Ram Swaroop Singh for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Gupta for the respondent. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) dated 22.8.2013, by which the revision filed by the contesting respondents was allowed, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the matter was remanded to the SOC to decide the appeal on merit.

While allowing the revision, the DDC has recorded a finding that notice issued by the CO has not been served upon the revisionist, accordingly, the order was passed behind his back. In basic consolidation records, the name of the petitioner was not recorded over the land in dispute. The petitioner filed an objection u/s 9 of the Act (registered as Case No. 2587). It is alleged that in this case, the statement of Bhaggu was recorded, who admitted the claim of the petitioner and accordingly, the CO by order dated 17.1.1991 directed for recording the name of the petitioner.

The Counsel for the petitioner submits that notices were issued to all the tenure holders, which were received by Bhaggu, who was the real brother of the respondents and Bhaggu appeared before the CO and got his statement recorded. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that Kamlesh was also present before the CO and signed the order-sheet, filed on page 23 of the writ petition. Accordingly, he submits that the respondents have notice of the proceedings, but they avoided to appear before the CO. In such circumstances, the finding of the DDC is illegal and the revision ought to have been dismissed.

I have considered the arguments of Counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.

The finding recorded by the DDC that notices have not been served upon Dinesh Kumar and others (respondents-3 to 6) has not been challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that notices issued to them were received by Bhaggu on their behalf, who was the real brother of respondents-3 to 5 and Bhaggu got his statement recorded before the CO, accordingly, the respondents had notice of the proceedings. The name of the petitioner was deleted from the revenue records on the ground that he had sold his share to Smt. Parwati (respondent-6), who did not appear before the CO and contested the claim of the petitioner. Bhaggu was not entitled to represent her as such, the ground that Bhaggu had appeared, she cannot be denied hearing.

A perusal of the order-sheet of SOC (filed on page 23 of writ petition) shows that in the upper part, the endorsement of the record of SOC has been noted and the date fixed was shown as 18.11.2013, 15.12.2012 and in the lower part of the order-sheet of CO date 15.1.1991 has been shown, in which it is alleged that signature of Kamlesh was there. The order of CO was passed on 17.1.1991, who relied upon the statement of Bhaggu, although Bhaggu was present before the CO, but his signature was not obtained on the order sheet, rather signature of Kamlesh was allegedly obtained, whose statement was not recorded, which does not inspire any confidence that Kamlesh was present before the CO. In such circumstances, the finding of fact recorded by the DDC does not appear to be illegal.

Since the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned and the matter is still required to be heard on merit by the SOC, it is not appropriate for this Court to interfere in the matter.

The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. Since the matter is very old, the SOC may decide the appeal on merit, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order. The parties undertake that they will not take any unnecessary adjournment before the SOC.