Veeresh Singh vs D.D.C. And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 5997 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 60673 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Veeresh Singh
 
Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Ram Sajivan
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J.

Heard Shri Ram Sajivan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 04.10.2012, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (In short, DDC), passed in Revision No. 237 (Veeresh Singh Vs. Mahesh Chandra), by which the revision filed by the revisionist/petitioner has been dismissed.

The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that, it appears in Case No. 24 of 2009-2010 (Raj Kumar Vs. Veeresh), an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer (in short, CO) on 25.01.2010, accepting some statements, which were made on affidavits. An objection was raised by the petitioner that in view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (in short, Rules), only oral and documentary evidence can be taken into consideration, and there is no provision for filing a statement on affidavit.

In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Raja Ram Vs. DDC, Basti & Ors., 1993 RD 32.

It appears, the CO has ignored the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner vide order dated 25.01.2010, which was impugned in the revision. Before the DDC also, the argument was advanced that since the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (In short CPC) in toto, are not applicable, and only few principles are applicable under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short, Act), therefore, the CO has erred in passing the order dated 25.01.2010. The DDC has observed that since the case is still proceeding, therefore, no interference is called for, and dismissed the revision.

For appreciating the controversy, the sub-rule (2) of Rule 26 of the Rules would be necessary to be looked into, which is reproduced herein below:-

"26 (2). On the date fixed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 25-A, or on any subsequent date fixed for the purpose, the Consolidation Officer shall hear the parties, frame issues on the points in dispute, take evidence, both oral and documentary, and decide the objections."

From the bare reading of sub-rule (2) of Rule 26 it would transpire that on the date fixed under Rule 25-A or any other subsequent date fixed for that purpose, the CO shall hear the parties, frame issues on the points in dispute, take evidence, both oral and documentary and decide the objections. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under this Rule, there is no provision for accepting the statements on affidavit. and since the provisions contained under sub-rule (2) has been held mandatory by this Court in the case of Raja Ram Vs. DDC (Supra), therefore, the CO as well as the DDC has erred in passing the impugned orders.

It is not in dispute that the order impugned in the revision was the order dated 25.01.2010, which was passed on an application filed by the petitioner in a pending proceeding.

Section 48 of the Act confers a right upon a tenure holder to file revision against any order not being interlocutory order. In order to resolve the issue, it would be in benefit to peruse the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act, which is reproduced hereunder:-

"48 (1) The 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 an interlocutory order) (inserted by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 w.e.f. 10.11.1980), passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit."

From the bare reading of the aforesaid Section it would transpire that the revision would be maintainable against any order except the interlocutory order. The interlocutory order has been explained in Explanation (2) of the aforesaid Section, where it is provided that for the purposes of this Section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceeding, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding.

The literal meaning of the word 'interlocutory order' has been defined in various dictionaries as under:

(1) Law Lexicon (P. Ramanath Ayer) 1997 Edition: Interlocutory order: An interlocutory order is one which is made pending the case and before a final hearing on the merits.

An interlocutory order is made to secure some end and purpose necessary and essential to the progress of the suit, and generally collateral to the issues formed by the pleadings and not connected with the final judgment.

(2) Halsbury's Law of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 26, Paragraph 506:

Interlocutory order: An order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties, but either - (1) is made before judgment and gives no final decision on the matters in dispute, but is merely on a matter of procedure, or (2) is made after judgment, and merely directs how the declarations of right already given in the final judgment are to be worked out, is termed 'interlocutory'. An interlocutory order, even though not conclusive of the main dispute, may be conclusive as to the subordinates matter with which / ideals.

(3) Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th Edition:

Interlocutory: (of a decree or judgment) given provisionally during the course of a legal action."

On bare perusal of the meaning of the word 'interlocutory order', it would transpire that an order, which does not have the effect of finality of the proceedings and it is an order in a pending proceeding, which is made during the progress of an action and which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties.

The word 'interlocutory order' has also been used in section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the same came up for consideration before the apex Court in the case of Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1977 SC 2185, where the apex Court has held that the term 'interlocutory order' merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. In the case of V.C. Shukla Vs. State through CBI, AIR 1980 SC 962, the apex Court held that the interlocutory order has to be construed in contradiction to or in contrast with final order, it means not a final order, but an intermediate order. It is made between the commencement of an action and the entry of the judgment.

"Reverting back to the facts of this case, as would appear from the record that here, in this case, nothing has been decided. The order accepting or refusing the evidence, impugned in the revision, in my considered view, would not fall in the ambit of a final order, as the matter is still subjudice before the Consolidation Officer, if anything turns on the statements filed on affidavit, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same before the higher Court by way of filing appeal/revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Raja Ram (Supra). The facts of the aforesaid case are clearly distinguishable, as in that case without framing the issues and without providing any opportunity to adduce evidence, the matter was decided and there this Court held that sub-rule (2) of Rule 26 of the Rules are mandatory in nature and the case could not be decided without framing issues and without permitting to the parties to adduce the evidence.

In view of the foregoing discussions, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the DDC.

The writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 11.12.2012

AKSI