Ram Charan vs D D C And Others

Court No. - 19

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 21586 of 2012 Petitioner :- Ram Charan Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivaji Singh Sisodia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dan Bahadur Yadav,Lal Chandra Sahu,M.K. Singh,Rahul Singh,Virendra Patap Pal

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Virendra Pratap Pal, Advocate, representing respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), whereby the D.D.C. on an application filed by the opposite parties has recalled the order dated 18.10.1994 on the ground that the said order was not in accordance with the compromise dated 20.10.1993 entered into between the predecessors of the petitioner and respondents and has also modified the chaks as allotted through order dated 18.10.1994.

It has been stated in the writ petition that the order dated 18.10.1994 was in accordance with the compromise dated 20.10.1993 entered into between the predecessors of the petitioner and respondents. It has further been stated in paragraph No. 20 of the writ petition that the order dated 18.10.2011 was passed ex-parte against the petitioner and without giving him any opportunity of hearing. The said averment has been denied in the counter affidavit. The question whether any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner relates to the proceedings of the court and is a question of fact, which cannot be decided on affidavit evidence. However, a reading of the order dated 18.10.2011 shows that the same is a non-speaking order inasmuch as in his aforesaid order, the D.D.C. has not stated the extent to which the alleged compromise dated 20.10.1993 was not implemented through the order dated 18.10.1994. The order does not state the necessary facts to support the findings of the D.D.C. The order dated 18.10.2011 does not recite the facts necessary for recalling the order dated 18.10.1994. Further, the application for recall of the order dated 18.10.1994 was filed by the respondents on 24.6.2011, i.e., almost after 17 years of the order dated 18.10.1994. It is also not apparent from the order dated 18.10.2011 that as to whether the delay in filing the recall application had been condoned by the D.D.C. Without condoning the delay in filing the said application, the D.D.C. could not have recalled his order dated 18.10.1994.

In view of the aforesaid, it is a fit case where the matter should be remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass fresh and reasoned order in Reference Case No. 3587 registered under Section 48(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. The order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the D.D.C. is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly to pass fresh orders in Reference Case No. 3587 registered under Section 48(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. While passing fresh orders, the D.D.C. shall also consider the rights of the petitioner to oppose the recall application filed by the respondents.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 13.8.2019 Anurag/-