Talewar vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahar and others

Krishna Murari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ayub Khan for contesting respondent No. 3.

Sri Ayub Khan states that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit.

In view of the above statement, the writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage.

Objection under section 9B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short ''the Act'') was filed by the contesting respondent No. 3 challenging the valuation of some of the plots which included the plots of the petitioner as well on the ground that they have been wrongly valued at .90 paise and should be valued .50 paise. Vide order dated 30.6.2005 Consolidation Officer reduced the valuation of the said plots from .90 paise to .70 paise. A time barred appeal was filed by the petitioner. Settlement Officer Consolidation finding that the order of the Consolidation Officer reducing the valuation of the plots was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without making spot inspection, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 11.1.2007. Respondent No. 3 went up in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 5.6.2007 dismissed the revision. The respondent No. 3 moved an application to recall the order dated 5.6.2007, which was dismissed on 15.11.2007. She again moved a recall application which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.3.2008 and revision was restored. Subsequently, Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 3.6.2008 allowed the revision and set aside the appellate order and confirmed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer.

It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that Settlement Officer Consolidation had allowed the appeal on the ground that the Consolidation Officer refixed the valuation of his plots without any notice or opportunity of hearing ''and by the impugned order Deputy Director of Consolidation has restored back the exparte order without recording any finding that the order of the Consolidation Officer was not exparte.

In reply, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent has tried to justify the impugned orders.

I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

There appears to be force in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Deputy Director of Consolidation has neither set aside the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation that the order of the Consolidation Officer was exparte and was passed without making any spot inspection. Appropriately, the Settlement Officer Consolidation after allowing the appeal ought to have remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the objection of respondent No. 3 afresh after hearing the petitioner instead he simply allowed the appeal. Deputy Director of Consolidation has also committed the same mistake.

In view of the above, the order dated 3.6.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as 11.1.2007 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation are not liable to be sustained and are hereby quashed.

The writ petition stands allowed.

Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the objection under section 9B of the Act filed by respondent No. 3 afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.