Reet Ram and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly and Others

Reet Ram and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 25, 2011

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/917334

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/917334
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: A.P. Sahi, J.
Decided On: Apr 25, 2011
Case Number: CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 67439 OF 2008 And CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 16019 OF 2011
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[R.V. Raveendran; A. K. Patnaik] Indian Penal Code Section 452 - House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint -- After investigation, the police filed two challans on 02.02.2006 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana. After further investigation, the Superintendent of Pol...

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Land Revenue Act, 1901; U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9-A, 12

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Reet Ram and Others

Respondent

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly and Others

Advocate Sri. S.S. Sisodiya, Sri. Saini

Legal References

Acts: Land Revenue Act, 1901; U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9-A, 12

Excerpt

.....section 173 of the cr.p.c. under which the police submits reports after investigation and after further investigation, section 190 of the cr. p.c. under which the magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report and section 482 of the cr.p.c. under which the high court exercises its powers to quash the criminal proceedings. report of police officer on completion of investigation. cognizance of offences by magistrate. sub-section (8) of section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 173, cr.p.c., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). thus, the report under sub-section (2) of section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. r.p. kapur moved the punjab high court under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. .....it is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 22.2.2011 being an incorrect exercise of jurisdiction deserves to be set aside. 7. having heard learned counsel for the parties, the background of the case clearly demonstrates that the proceedings under section 12, that were undertaken, and reached the high court in writ petition no. 47439 of 2008, in the opinion of the court, was an absolutely infructuous exercise without adhering to the mandate of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the act moreso keeping in view the fact that the objections under section 9 were still pending. the dispute raised under section 12 ought3 to have been clubbed with the objection under section 9 and the same could have been decided simultaneously. the deputy director of consolidation, in the opinion of the court, was therefore right in passing the order dated 05.08.2010 and remanding the matter back to the consolidation officer for deciding the objections afresh after allowing the parties to lead their evidence. in such a situation, the impugned order dated 22.02.2011 cannot be sustained. it is hereby quashed. the consequence of passing of this order is that the order dated 05.08.2010 revives. the revival of the said order renders writ petition no. 67439 of 2008 infructuous. 8. accordingly, the writ petition no. 67439 of 2008 is dismissed as infructuous. 9. writ petition no. 16019 of 2011 is allowed with a direction to the consolidation officer to proceed to decide the objections filed under section 9 of the u.p.c.h. act, 1953 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and lead evidence within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him.

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.S. Sisodiya and Sri Saini, learned counsel for the respondents. Counsel agree that the petitions be disposed of finally at this stage itself.

2. These two writ petitions have been filed by persons claiming themselves to be the Vendees of late Moti Ram. They contend that they had purchased the property through a sale deed dated 9.12.1986. Upon having purchased the land, they claimed to have applied for mutation and the Tahsildar passed an order on 07.08.1987 against which a restoration application was filed by late Moti Ram. The said restoration was allowed against which the petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Land Revenue Act, 1901. During the pendency of the said appeal, the consolidation operations set in and, therefore, the said proceedings abated.

3. It appears that objections were filed under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the matter proceeded. The petitioners also appear to have filed an application under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for mutation. The application under Section 12 was allowed despite the pendency of the objection under Section 9.

4. A restoration application was filed against the order passed in application under Section 12 which was allowed and the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the revision received the same fate against which Writ Petition No. 67439 of 2008 has been filed.

5. During the pendency of these proceedings, it appears that on the strength of an interim order dated 07.01.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 67439 of 2008 on an application which was filed to stay the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953, an order of status quo was passed whereafter an appeal was filed which was rejected by the Consolidation Officer. Against which another appeal was filed, which was allowed. Against that a revision was preferred. The Revisional Authority initially passed an order on 5.8.2010 whereby the revision was allowed and the order of the Appellate authority was set aside directing the Consolidation Officer to decide the objections under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953. This order came to be reviewed by the impugned order dated 22.02.2011 and the entire dispute appears to have been decided on merits by the Deputy Director of Consolidation without there being any evidence led as directed by the earlier order.

6. The contention raised is that in the aforesaid background, the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have maintained the order dated 5.8.2010 in order to resolve the dispute between the parties. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 22.2.2011 being an incorrect exercise of jurisdiction deserves to be set aside.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the background of the case clearly demonstrates that the proceedings under Section 12, that were undertaken, and reached the High Court in Writ Petition No. 47439 of 2008, in the opinion of the Court, was an absolutely infructuous exercise without adhering to the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act moreso keeping in view the fact that the objections under Section 9 were still pending. The dispute raised under Section 12 ought3 to have been clubbed with the objection under Section 9 and the same could have been decided simultaneously. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, in the opinion of the Court, was therefore right in passing the order dated 05.08.2010 and remanding the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the objections afresh after allowing the parties to lead their evidence. In such a situation, the impugned order dated 22.02.2011 cannot be sustained. It is hereby quashed. The consequence of passing of this order is that the order dated 05.08.2010 revives. The revival of the said order renders Writ Petition No. 67439 of 2008 infructuous.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition No. 67439 of 2008 is dismissed as infructuous.

9. Writ Petition No. 16019 of 2011 is allowed with a direction to the Consolidation Officer to proceed to decide the objections filed under Section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and lead evidence within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2011 Same Parties Reet Ram and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bare... Same Subject Civil Same Judge A.P. Sahi, J. Acts & Sections Land Revenue Act, 1901; U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1...

Civil Certified copy Interim order In order to high court status quo