Doni vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Padrauna, Deoria and others

Vikram Nath, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

This petition has been filed assailing the correctness of the judgment and order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.9.1988 whereby the revision filed by the respondents was allowed and the order of the Consolidation Officer allowing the amendment application filed by the petitioner was set aside and the amendment application was rejected. The objections as originally filed by the parties under section 9A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition. From the perusal of the said objections issue which emerges is with regard to the acquisition of the land in dispute being ancestral or by the father of the respondents. The petitioner claimed that the acquisition was ancestral and that the father of the petitioner and that of the respondents were jointly living as one family, whereas the case of the respondents is that the acquisition of the land in dispute was exclusively of their father in which the petitioner had no right or interest. Subsequently an amendment was filed by the petitioner, which has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, in which although a little different stand has been taken but the issue which still emerges to be decided would remain the same and therefore, in the opinion of the Court it would not materially effect the original stand taken by the petitioner in his objections. The Deputy Director had rejected the amendment application firstly on the ground that it adversely effect the rights of the respondents and secondly that it was filed at a belated stage.

Having perused the objections, the amendment application and the orders passed by the Courts below, in the opinion of the Court the amendment had been rightly allowed by the Consolidation Officer. The issue which is to be decided still remains the same that is as to whether the acquisition of land in dispute was by common ancestor or was solely by father of the respondents. It is well settled that amendment even if filed at belated stage but if it substantially does not effect the nature of the claim, normally should be allowed. Accordingly, the order of the Deputy Director cannot be sustained.

Writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.9.1988 is hereby quashed. The amendment application filed by the petitioner stands allowed as it ordered by the Consolidation Officer. Since the matter is old one the Consolidation Officer may proceed to decide the objections on merit expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Counsel for both the sides state that the parties shall cooperate in leading of the evidence and hearing of the case.

Petition allowed as above but without any order as to costs.