Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 40487 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Madhu And Another Respondent :- Collector/District Deputy Director Consolidation & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Satyendra Kumar Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar,Pankaj Govil Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav,J.
Against the maintainability of writ petition Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel
appearing for respondents has raised preliminary objection that against the
order dated 12.10.2009 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation the
petitioners have straightway filed writ petition before this Court which was
numbered as Writ Petition No.61768 of 2009Smt. Madhu and another Vs.
Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The aforesaid writ petition has been
dismissed vide detailed and well reasoned judgment and order dated
17.11.2009 passed by this Court. The revisional court while taking notice of
the aforesaid judgment has dismissed the revision No.1/2009-10 Smt. Madhu
and others Vs. Dharmpal Singh and others filed by the petitioners vide
judgment and order dated 17.06.2010, hence this writ petition is not
maintainable at the instance of the petitioners as this Court will not review
the earlier decision rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.61768 of 2009
Smt. Madhu and another Vs. Settlement Officer of Consolidation on
17.11.2009 and accordingly the judgment and order impugned in the writ
petition passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be called in
question, as the Deputy Director of Consolidation has merely decided the
revision on the basis of decision rendered by this Court referred above in writ
petition earlier filed by the petitioners.
Contrary to it, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the
petitioners have already preferred above noted revision before Deputy
Director of Consolidation and operation of order impugned in the said
revision has already been stayed by revisional court below in pending revision
No.1/2009-10 referred above, as such the petitioners have no occasion to
challenge the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation straightway
before this Court in above noted writ petition, as the interim relief sought for
by the petitioners has already been granted by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation. It is not in dispute that the Writ Petition No.61768 of 2009 has
been filed subsequent to the filing of revision filed by the petitioners.
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the aforesaid
writ petition has been filed by some other person by way of impostor and
against the order dated 17.11.2009 passed by this Court the petitioners have
already moved recall/review application before this Court and the same is still
pending for consideration when they came to know about the judgment and
order passed by this Court which was placed before the Deputy Director of
Consolidation.
It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that the land in
dispute has already been acquired by the Government and possession of land
has already been taken by the State. In case the recorded tenure holders will
get compensation from the office of Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners
would suffer great irreparable loss.
In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is debatable point to be
considered in the instant writ petition. Accordingly matter requires
consideration of this Court.
Respondents no.4, 5 and 6 are represented by Sri S.C. Verma assisted by Sri
Pankaj Govil.
Issue notice to the respondents no.7, 8 and 9 returnable at an early date.
Respondents are directed to file counter affidavit within four weeks. The
petitioners shall have three weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
I expect that the parties will get the recall application decided expeditiously
before the next date of listing.
List after three weeks along with Writ Petition No.61768 of 2009.
Till the next date of listing, Land Acquisition Officer shall not pay the
compensation of land in question to any person.
Order Date :- 14.7.2010
SL