AHMED ALI Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
Click here to view full judgement.
B.S.VERMA, J. -
(1.) BY means of this petition the petitioners have sought a writ,
order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders of the
Consolidation Officer dated 16 -3 -1991 and 30 -3 -1991, the order of
Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 2 -6 -1998 and the order of
Assistant Director of Consolidation dated 14 -1 -1999.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that the Consolidation Officer in consolidation proceedings
passed order dated 16 -3 -1991, whereby it was directed that in Khata No.
76 of village Salempur Mahdood, name of deceased Ahmad Ali S/o Pir Bux be deleted and name of Salim S/o Makhmool be recorded and the name of Kalu
S/o Aladia deceased be deleted and name of his heirs be recorded. The
recall application was filed for recalling the order dated 16 -3 -199 1
passed by Consolidation Officer in consolidation proceeding under the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act relating to Khata No. 76 situated in
village Salempur Mahmood. The recall application has been filed on
8.8.1994 by one Abdul Latif S/o Sri Gulam Hussain R/o Village Rajpur, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar before the Consolidation
Officer, on behalf of Kalu S/o Ali Bux, being attorney holder, executed
in his favour on 8 -8 -1994. It appears that in the recall application the
date of order passed by consolidation Officer against which the recall
application was filed was wrongly mentioned as order dated 30 -3 -199 1,
whereas the order was passed by consolidation Officer is dated 16 -3 -1991.
The application has been rejeced vide order dated 25 -7 -1995, on the
ground that since Kalu S/o Ali Bux has not filed the recall application
himself and the application is doubtful.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of passed by Consolidation Officer, dated 25 -7 -1995, appeals were preferred before Settlement Officer
Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation rejected the appeals
vide order dated 2 -6 -1998, on the ground that in Khata No. 76 name of
Kalu S/o Aladia is recorded, no objection has been filed U/S -9 of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the recall application has not
been filed by Kalu himself and it was filed after lapse of three years by
Further aggrieved by the order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, revisions were preferred and the Assistant Director
Consolidation vide impugned order dated 14 -1 -1999, dismissed the
revisions. The revisional authority has rejected the revisions on the
ground that the order dated 16 -3 -1991 has been passed on merit therefore
the appeal ought to have been filed instead of filing the recall
application. It was further observed that no objection has been filed U/s
9 -A of the Act.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.