Smt. Jaldhari vs Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Sri R.C. Singh has put appearance on behalf of respondent-3. Respondents-3 to 6 are proforma parties in the writ petition. Sri R.C. Singh proposed not to file counter-affidavit in the circumstances of the case. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.8.2013 passed in chak allotment proceedings.

Admittedly, plot No. 5 is the original holding of the petitioner as well as respondent-2. Against the proposed chak, the petitioner filed a time barred objection before the Consolidation Officer alleging therein that due to allotment of chak his area has been reduced more than 25%. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 29.7.2011 condoned the delay and allowed the objection of the petitioner and the chak of respondent-2 has been disturbed. As a result of the order of Consolidation Officer, the area of the chak of respondent-2 has become less than 25%. Respondent-2 filed an appeal from the aforesaid order which has been dismissed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 9.8.2012, without considering the grievance of the respondent-2. Respondent-2 filed a revision against the aforesaid order which has been allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 31.8.2013. With the result, the position of the petitioner of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer has been restored.

The Counsel for the petitioner submit that area of the chak as proposed to the petitioner was less than 25% of her original holding, accordingly, the objection was filed by her, which has been allowed by the Consolidation Officer. The order of Consolidation Officer has been set aside by Deputy Director of Consolidation due to which the position of the petitioner has been restored to the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, resulting in 25 % of reduction of the area i.e. her original holding.

In reply to the aforesaid arguments Counsel for the respondent submits that the order of Consolidation Officer was ex parte and was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to respondent-2 who was not even impleaded party in the objection filed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the chak of the petitioner could not have been disturbed by the Consolidation Officer. The grievances of the respondent-2 has not been considered by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and his appeal has been dismissed by a cryptic order. In such circumstances, in case the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is set aside then the orders of Consolidation Officer as well as order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation be also set aside and the matter be remanded to Consolidation Officer who shall decide a fresh the objection of the petitioner, as the chak of the petitioner of the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer has been restored. The Counsel for the petitioner has not raised the objection to the arguments raised by Counsel for the respondents. In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.8.2013 passed in Revision No. 2 (Bharatram v. Smt. Jaldhari), Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 9.8.2012 passed in Appeal No. 699 (Bharatram v. Smt. Jaldhari) and Consolidation Officer dated 29.7.2011 passed in Case No. 174/11 (Smt. Jaldhari v. Tilakram) are set aside. The matter is remanded to Consolidation Officer who shall decide the objection of the petitioner afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned in accordance of law.