Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) This is an application filed under Chapter IX Rule 14 of the High Court Rules read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review of the judgment dated 5.5.2005 dismissing the writ petition.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in short are that during consolidation proceeding plot in dispute was earmarked as 'bachat' land for public purposes. Though the petitioner claims the plot in dispute to he his original holding but no objection was filed either by him or by any other person at the stage of Section 9 challenging the reservation of the disputed plot as 'bachat' land. After the adjudication of a title dispute between the respondent No. 3 and one Ram Sagar, a reference was prepared by the Consolidation Officer and certain area of disputed plot was allotted in the chak of respondent No. 3 in order to adjust the valuation to which he was found entitled in the title dispute. The petitioner, aggrieved by the same, filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation with a prayer that plot in dispute may be allotted in his chak. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that revision was barred by time and cause show for delay was not sufficient, yet instead of dismissing the revision as time barred he considered it on merits. Having found that petitioner never filed any objection at the stage of Section 9 against inclusion of the plot in dispute as 'bachat' land in statement of principles and 'sehan' and 'abadi' of the petitioner do exist on the plot in dispute as claimed by him the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision. The writ petition tiled by the petitioner challenging the rivisional order was dismissed mainly on the ground that petition is concluded by finding of facts recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and since the petitioner did not file any objection at the stage of Section 9 of the Act as such his claim for allotment of the plot in dispute in his chak stands barred by virtue of Section 11-A of the Act.
(3.) Review of the aforesaid judgment has been sought on the following grounds: 1. Because the order of the Hon'ble Judge is a mistake and error apparent on the face of the record in as much as the Joint Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision of the petitioner and decided the dispute on merit, so did the Hon'ble Judge ignoring the Supreme Court judgment cited before him reported in JT1998 (8)SC 529 , (1998)9 SCC558 (Ram Kali Devi (Smt.) v. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Samsabad and Ors. 2. Because the petitioner has challenged the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation on the ground that it was manifestly erroneous inasmuch as there was only 4 days delay in filing the revision by the petitioner and fully explained the cause of delay but instead of taking liberal view as held by several judgments of this Hon'ble Court as well as the Supreme Court, he illegally rejected the revision as time barred and went on deciding the case on merit and similarly, the Hon'ble Judge did not condone the delay and decided the writ petition on merit, which is an apparent error on the face of the record. 3. Because the Joint Director of Consolidation has got a statutory duty to correct the records yet he decided the case on merit on a finding which was contrary to record, is apparent from the discovery of the evidence to that effect now which has been annexed as annexures along with the stay application and the review is sought against the order of this Hon'ble Court. 4. Because the Joint Director of Consolidation has failed to consider that the land in dispute was an old 'abadi' and there was no justification to assess the same for valuation and keep it as 'Bachat' land although the Joint Director of Consolidation has himself rightly held the land having been kept as 'Bachat' land was unjustified and illegal, yet he approved of the same and the learned Judge has also ignored this material aspect of the matter while dismissing the writ petition resulting into miscarriage of justice. 5. Because in the basic year 'Khatauni' the aforesaid plot No. 3965 area 11 biswa was recorded as old 'abadi' and was settled with the petitioner under Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A, & L.R. Act over which the petitioner has got his house constructed and the remaining part was appurtenant to house being used as Sahan by the petitoner and the same could not be assessed for valuation and be kept as 'Bachat' land and the same has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Judge resulting into miscarriage of justice. 6. Because the order of the Hon'ble High Court staying the operation of the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation dated 25.7.1980 and the order of Consolidation Officer, Koraon, Allahabad dated 24.5.1980 was stayed in the writ petition by his lordship order dated 11.3.1981 yet the consolidation authorities order was carried out in the records giving the plots at the end of the record dividing it into two numbers and giving the fresh numbers under C.H. Form-41 and C.H. Form-45 without waiting for the judgment of this Hon'ble Court, was the result of the collusion of the consolidation authorities with opp. party No. 3 which could not be placed in absence of documentary evidence. 7. Because in C.H. Form-11 plot No. 3965/1 measuring area 1 biswa and plot No. 3965/2 measuring area 10 biswa has been shown to be general 'abadi' and as such the same could not be assessed for valuation on or for allotment of chak to a person as 'Udan' Chak in front of the Sahan of the petitioner by the subordinate consolidation authorities in collusion with opp. Party No. 3. 8. Because the land in dispute being general 'abadi' there was no need for the petitioner to file an objection inasmuch it was the duty of the Joint Director of Consolidation to correct the same and the mistake committed by the Joint Director of Consolidation was also not noticed by the Hon'ble Judge and illegally affirmed the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation resulting into miscarriage of justice and as such the present review application is being filed.;