Allahabad High Court
Satgur Deen & Ors. vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 21 August, 2017
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?AFR
Court No. - 4
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 18997 of 2017
Petitioner :- Satgur Deen & Ors.
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Distt. Unnao & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akash Dikshit
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
The revision of the petitioner against an order passed by the Consolidation Officer under Rule 109(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 has been rejected as not maintainable.
The contention of the petitioners is that the powers under Section 48 are very wide, therefore, the view taken by the revisional Court is not sustainable.
On a perusal of the provisions contained in Section 48 and 52 of the Act, 1953 read with Rule 109(1) this Court is of the view that on issuance of notification under Section 52 consolidation operation ceases except in respect of matters referred in Sub-section 2 of Section 52 and as an order passed under Rule 109(1) is not an order passed in a proceeding pending on the date of notification under Section 52, therefore, a revision under Section 48 which is a part of the consolidation operation is not maintainable against such an order. The proceedings under Rule 109(1) of the Rules, 1954 are undertaken only after denotification under Section 52 i.e. close of consolidation operation and they are for giving effect to orders passed in proceedings referred in Sub-section 2 of Section 52. Against an order passed under Rule 109(1) of the Rules, 1954 no appeal has been prescribed in the statute, whereas, if an exercise is required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 109, then, an appeal is prescribed, but no revisional remedy is specifically prescribed, meaning thereby, the legislative intent in this regard is very clear. Rule 109(1) is a provision under which execution of the orders referred in Sub-section 2 of Section 52, is to be done. The proceedings thereunder are in the nature of execution proceeding, but, they are not on the same lines as Order 21 C.P.C., wherein, there is a provision for filing of objection under Section 47 and thereafter further remedies are provided. An order under Rule 109(1) not being an order in any original proceeding under the Act, 1953 nor in any proceeding pending as referred in Sub-section 2 of Section 52 it can not be said to be amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the D.D.C. under Section 48 which can be exercised after denotification only against such pending proceedings. The Division Bench judgment relied upon by the petitioner as rendered in the case of Faujdar Vs. Deputy Director of Conslidation reported in 2002 (2) AWC 1012 did not relate to exercise of revisional power under Section 48 as against an order passed under Rule 109(1) of the Rules, 1954 but against orders passed during consolidation operation, therefore, it has no application to the present case. An order passed under Rule 109 (1) is not a matter referred in Sub-section 2 of Section 52. The legislative intent in not providing any remedy against such an order appears to be that if a person is aggrieved he would challenge the original orders which are to be given effect under Rule 109(1) and as under the said provision all that is to be done is to give effect to such orders, therefore, no remedy has been provided.
However, in a given fact situation there may be a case where while giving effect to such orders the concerned authorities may err and therefore, a person can not be left remedyless. In such a situation, the remedy would be before a writ Court under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but, in this writ petition the petitioner has not challenged the order passed under Rule 109(1), he has only challenged the revisional order passed under Section 48, therefore, the validity of the said order can not be seen in the absence of a challenge to it.
Needless to say that such petitions against orders passed under the aforesaid Rule would not be entertained in a routine manner considering the nature of the proceedings. Only in exceptional circumstances interference would be made.
In view of the above, the revisional Court can not be faulted for having passed the impugned order. In these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to challenge the order dated 06.02.2017 passed under Rule 109(1) by filing a fresh writ petition.
Subject to these observations and the liberty aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed as against the revisional order.
Order Date :- 21.8.2017
R.K.P.
