Allahabad High Court
Ram Veer Singh vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation, ... on 23 November, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)AWC230, 1999 ALL. L. J. 735, 1999 A I H C 2402, (1999) REVDEC 29, (1999) 1 ALL WC 230
Author: Shitla Pd. Srivastava
Bench: Shitla Pd. Srivastava
JUDGMENT Shitla Pd. Srivastava, J.
1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for quashing the orders dated 14.10.1998, 17.4.1998 and 12.12.1997 passed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
2. Sri V. P. Rai has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent No. 4, Smt. Omwati. He has given a statement in the Court that he will not file any counter-affidavit and is ready to argue the case without filing any counter-affidavit even today. Learned standing counsel is representing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
3. The brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition are that proceeding under the provisions of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act started. Order was passed by the Consolidation Officer. An appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation instead of deciding the controversy involved in the writ petition himself allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the same afresh. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment two revisions were filed before the Dy. Director of Consolidation. The Dy. Director of Consolidation on 14.10.1998 disposed of the two revisions by a common judgment and in paragraph 6 of the judgment, he observed that both parties in support of their objection have filed documents which were available on record. He has referred the extract from birth register and death certificate and was, of the view that in view of the fact that documents and evidence were on record, the Settlement Officer Consolidation should not have remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer rather he should have decided the case himself. The petitioner has challenged these three orders in this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that when the Dy. Director of Consolidation was of the opinion and also has observed in his judgment that the evidence is available on record the Settlement Officer Consolidation is competent to decide the appeal instead of sending the same to the Consolidation Officer. Same duty should have also been performed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation as he was equally competent to decide the revision but it has not been done by him. His order amounts violation of jurisdiction vested in him under law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in a case decided by this Court in Bashir Ahmad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others, 1986 RD 164. In this case, the controversy was also the same as it is in this case and this Court while interpreting Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act held that the Dy. Director of Consolidation can take additional evidence, if any party wants to lead. The condition imposed by Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. have not been fulfilled before additional evidence could be accepted or permitted to be led. The Court observed, that in view of the fact that the entire evidence was led by the parties and that was discussed and it was for the Dy. Director of Consolidation to have decided the case on merit and in case any of the parties wanted to lead further evidence it was open to the Dy. Director of Consolidation to have permitted the parties to lead further evidence and in case some other evidence was required he should have remitted the issue and findings could have been given by the subordinate court to that issue alone and thereafter the issue could have been considered and the same could have been taken into consideration by the Dy. Director of Consolidation. It was finally held by this Court that the entire order of remand was not justified by the Dy. Director of Consolidation who was exercising a very comprehensive power under Section 48 of the aforesaid Act.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition on legal point that the Dy. Director of Consolidation has considered the fact and he was of the view that the matter be decided by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. There is nothing to prove that the order passed by the Dy, Director of Consolidation suffers from any error or illegally. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the Dy. Director of Consolidation was within his jurisdiction either to hear the matter or remand the case back to the subordinate court. He has then submitted that the matter shall be deemed to have been considered by him and it cannot be said that he has failed to consider the materials on record.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going the judgments of the consolidation authorities, I am of the view that when the Dy. Director of Consolidation himself found that the document as well as the death certificate and extract of birth register are on the record, then the Dy. Director of Consolidation should have exercised his power under Section 48 of the aforesaid Act. This Court has in a Full Bench case in Rama Kant Singn v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, U. P. and others, AIR 1975 All 126. referred 1978 ALJ 430. that when the revision is filed before the Dy. Director of Consolidation and the moment record has been called for it appears that he (the applicant) ceased to be an actor on the scene and the specified authority who had called for the record becomes the actor on the scene. Section 48 of the aforesaid Act also says samething that the Dy. Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings : or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order [other than interlocutory order) passed by such authority in the case of proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case of proceedings as he thinks fit.
7. A bare perusal of this section would show that the Dy. Director of Consolidation has also been given power to see the correctness of the order and if he was of the opinion that there are evidence on record he should have decided the case on the basis of the evidence. As it has not been done, I am of the view, which is supported by the decision quoted above, that the order dated 14.10.1998 should be set aside and the matter be sent back to the Dy, Director of Consolidation to decide afresh keeping in view the observations made by the Court in the earlier decision quoted above after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 14.10.1998 is hereby set aside and the matter is sent back to the Dy. Director of Consolidation to restore the revision to its original number and decide the matter afresh in view of the observations made by this Court in the body of the judgment after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. There shall be no orders as to cost.