Allahabad High Court
Ram Avtar vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation, ... on 17 August, 2012
Bench: Anil Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
RESERVED
Court No. - 18
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 487 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ram Avtar
Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Pratapgarh & Anr.
Petitioner Counsel :- Devi Prasad Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,S.P.S. Somvanshi
Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Heard Shri Devi Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel as well as Shri S.P.S. Somvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
Facts in brief of the present case are that aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.1978 passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Ram Avtar son of Mahavir resident of Gram Salem Bhadari, Pargana Rampur, Tehsil Lalganj, District-Pratapgarh filed a revision bearing Revision No.8884 of 1442 "Ram Avtar vs. Gaon Sabha" under Section 48 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings, Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh which was dismissed on 6.6.1979.
Thereafter, Manohar son of Manbodh on 27.4.2006 moved an application for review of the said order along with an application for condonation of delay.
In the meantime, the present petitioner Ram Avtar filed a petition (Writ Petition No.2821 (MS) of 2010) under Article 227 of the constitution of India, disposed of by an order dated 13.5.2010, on reproduction reads as under:-
"Petition is seeking expeditious disposal of Revision No.8884/1442/1929/07, which is pending before the opposite party i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh since 2007.
Considering this fact, I hereby dispose the writ petition finally with the direction to the opposite party i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the aforesaid case expeditiously within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned."
During the pendency of the present writ petition, Manohar, son of Manbodh died, substituted by his legal representatives namely Ram Baran, Raja Ram, Shiv Bahadur, Lal Bahadur and Vijay Bahadur.
Thereafter, by an order dated 9.2.2011 Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh recalled the order dated 6.6.1979, passed earlier and fixed the matter/revision for hearing on merit.
Aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.2011(Annexure No.1) passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/Shri Ram Avtar challenging the same on the ground that Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh has got no power to review his earlier order, the same has not been vested in the said authority under the U. P. Consolidation Act. In support of the above argument he placed reliance on the judgment given in the case of Smt. Anar Kali and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others 1997 (15) LCD 921, accordingly, he requests that the impugned order dated 9.2.2011 is liable to be set aside.
Shri S. P.S. Somvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent, in rebuttal, submits that in the matter in question once petitioner./Shri Ram Avtar has himself approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2821 (MS) of 2010, disposed of by an order dated 13.5.2010 with a direction to Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh to decide the matter/revision expeditiously within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Thereafter, by order dated 9.2.2011, the application for condonation of delay moved by his client was allowed, order dated 6.6.1996 recalled, revision fixed for hearing, then the petitioner cannot challenge the same and argue that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh has got no authority to review his earlier order, so the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
So far as the matter in respect of the fact that whether it is open for the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh/Consolidation authority to review/recall its final order, exercising inherent powers has already been settled by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Anar Kali (supra) that Consolidation Courts under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has no power to review its earlier order, in paragraph no.39 it has been held as under:-
"On the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs it is our considered view that it is not open for the consolidation authorities to review/recall their final orders passed in proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in exercise of inherent powers. Thus, the question formulated earlier is answered in the negative. The writ petition will be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal in the light of this judgment."
Now next question which is to be decided is that if the petitioner/Ram Avtar had approached this Court earlier by filing Writ Petition No.2821 (MS) of 2010, disposed of with a direction to decide the revision within a period of six months, then he has been debarred from raising the plea that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh has no power to review his earlier order, the answer to the said question finds place in the judgment given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 437 wherein paragraph 29 it has been held as under:-
"Review is a statutory remedy. In spite of several queries put by us to the learned counsel for the respondents, no provision for review under the statute could be brought to our notice. The Court cannot confer a jurisdiction upon any authority. Conferring jurisdiction upon a court/tribunal/authority is a legislative function and the same cannot be conferred either by the court or by the consent of the parties. Such an order passed by the High Court is without jurisdiction and, therefore, a nullity. Any order passed in pursuance thereof, also remains unenforceable and inexecutable."
For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 9.2.2011 passed by opposite party no.1 along with the proceeding in the matter are quashed, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 17.8.2012
Mahesh
