Jai Narain vs D.D.C. And Others on 12 May, 2023
"3.We agree with our learned brother that the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's objection. Under Section 12(1) only an Assistant Consolidation Officer had jurisdiction to entertain it. He was bound by Section 12(2), to obtain the views of the Land Management Committee, hear the parties if necessary and submit his report on, the objection to the Consolidation Officer, who was then to dispose of the objection in the prescribed manner. Rule 34 made by the State Government also required that an objection under Section 12 should be made in writing to the Assistant Consolidation Officer and should be accompanied as far as possible by the relevant extract in CH. Form 20, that the Assistant Consolidation Officer should hear the parties in the village in order to ascertain from them the actual nature of the dispute and ascertain the views of the Consolidation Committee "on, each case and record them in the form of resolutions in the Proceedings book" and then prepare a report "in, each case specially mentioning the opinion of the Consolidation Committee on the points in dispute and his own views and forward it to the Consolidation Officer. It is clear from these provisions that an objection under Section 12 could be entertained only by an Assistant Consolidation Officer and could not be entertained by a Consolidation Officer. The procedure laid down in Section 12(2) and Rule 34 could be followed by him and was not contemplated to be followed by any other officer. A Consolidation Officer had jurisdiction to pass orders on the objection but only on receipt of a report from an Assistant Consolidation Officer, he had no jurisdiction to pass orders on it otherwise. His jurisdiction was confined to passing orders on the Assistant Consolidation Officer's report "after such verification of facts from the parties concerned as necessary", vide Rule 34(2)(a).