Hafizuddin vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad and others

Krishna Murari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.K. Jaiswal for respondent No. 2 and Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad for respondent No. 3.

For correction of double entry in chak No. 609 and 145, Consolidation Officer prepared a reference and forwarded the same to the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was registered as reference No. 1071. Exercising power conferred by section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed an order dated 29.6.1972 accepting the chart forwarded by the Consolidation Officer along with his report making amendments in the chak. The said order could not be incorporated in the record and thereafter, on an application moved by the petitioner under Rule 109, an order dated 13.3.1995 was passed by the Consolidation Officer directing the Tehsildar, Modinagar to carry out the amendments as per the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26.6.1972. Still the order was not incorporated in the Revence record. As such, the petitioner moved another application consolidation Officer passed an order dated 16.5.2001 for incorporation of the order in the record.

At the time of accepting the reference in the year 1972, the land in dispute was situated in village Sarna, Muradnagar. Subsequently, in the year 1983, the land in dispute came to be included in the limit of Nagar Palika Parishad, Muradnagar, district Ghaziabad After about 30 years, respondent No. 2 claiming himself to be member of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Muradnagar moved an application to recall the order dated 29.6.1972 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The application was contested by the petitioner mainly on the ground that respondent No. 2 Satya Pal Singh was not a party to the said proceedings and the restoration application having been filed after 30 years is highly barred by time. It was also pleaded that in his capacity as member he cannot maintain the application without there being any resolution by the Nagar Palika Parishad. The objection filed by the petitioner was overruled and the Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the recall application was maintainable vide order dated 18.4.2002. The petitioner challenge the said order before this Court in writ petition No. 18657 of 2002 which was disposed of with liberty to file a detailed objection and the Deputy Director of Consolidation was directed to decide the recall application filed by the contesting respondent after hearing the parties. By means of the impugned order dated 4.7.2002, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the application and recalled the order dated 29.6.1972.

It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders cursory in nature and without even considering the objection raised by the petitioner as directed by this Court vide order dated 9.5.2002. It has further been pointed out that recall application filed by one of members of Nagar Palika Parishad without any resolution passed by the Nagar Palika Parishad authorising him to contest the proceedings, the application was not maintainable and has wrongly and illegally been allowed. It has also been pointed out that the application to recall the order after 30 years without any reasonable and justifiable cause was not maintainable and furthermore, since the order dated 29.6.1972 was passed after bearing Gaon Shabha, the Nagar Palika Parishad, who came into existence subsequently, could not have maintained the application to recall the said order.

In reply, learned Counsel for the respondents have tried to justify the impugned order.

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

In the counter affidavits filed by respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3, there is no reference of any resolution passed by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Muradnagar to contest the proceedings or authorising respondent No. 2 for the said purpose. Nagar Palika Parishad is to be represented either through the Chairman or the Executive Officer and any member of the Parishad is not authorized to contest the proceedings in this manner on behalf of the Nagar Palika Parishad. Further when the order dated 29.6.1972 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing Gaon Sabha the predecessorininterest of the Nagar Palika Parishad a member of the parishad has no locus to make a recall application after 30 years.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the application filed by respondent No. 2 in his capacity as member of the Nagar Palika Parishad was not maintainable and has wrongly and illegally been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 4.7.2002 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Recall application filed by respondent No. 2 stands dismissed.

The writ petition stands allowed, there shall be no order as to costs.