Mohd. Khalid and Others vs District Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

B.S. Verma, J.—By means of this petition the Petitioners have sought the following relief-

(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.7.1997 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation and order dated 7.4.1999 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to dispossess the Petitioners from Gata No. 27/1.2145, 95Kha/0.9286, 97/2.2800, 244 Kha/1.8588 situate in village Dhadha Tahsil Kichcha, District Udham Singh Nagar.

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to implement the order dated 17.7.1997 and 7.4.1999 passed by the Respondents 2 and 1 respectively.

Heard Mr. Arvind Vashist, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. N.P. Shah, Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

In the writ petition, it is alleged that during the consolidation proceedings, the name of the Petitioners were mutated in the revenue records by an order dated 26-04-1994. It is further alleged that on 14.011995, a notification u/s 52 of the Consolidation on Holdings Act was issued by which Tehsil Kichcha came to an end from consolidation operation. It is alleged that in spite of issuance of notification a belated appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. on 19-6-1997 against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 26.4.1994. The Settlement Officer Consolidation without issuing notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners and without summoning the record of the trial court passed expert order dated 17.7.1997. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the said order preferred a revision which was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 7.4.1999 without hearing the revisionists/Petitioners and without appreciating the record and evidence available on record.

Now the Petitioners being aggrieved by the order of provisional court have preferred this writ petition.

Perusal of order sheets of the proceeding in provisional court annexed with the petition indicate that on most dates the presiding officer was not available and eventually on 7.4.1999 the revision has been decided without giving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionists/Petitioners. The only stand taken by provisional court for dismissing the revision is that by hook or by crook the Petitioners have got mutated their names on the disputed land and they intentionally want to keep pending the revision. Any how, it is apparent on the face of impugned order that Petitioners were not heard when the revision was decided. Consequently, the order of the provisional court is against the principle of natural justice and is liable to be quashed.

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by provisional court is quashed. The matter is remitted to the provisional court to decide it afresh after hearing all parties concerned.