Allahabad High Court
Shobh Nath And Another vs Deputy Director Of ... on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1808 of 2019
Petitioner :- Shobh Nath And Another
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Varanasi And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sushil Kumar Pal
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sushil Kumar Pal, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
An order dated 20.07.1989 was passed by the Consolidation Officer, Varanasi exercising his power under Section 42-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation And Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act 1953') directing that the name of Raj Kumar, the predecessor of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, be expunged from Khata No. 293/ Chak No. 270. The said order was allegedly passed after recording the consent of Raj Kumar, the predecessor of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. When Raj Kumar came to know about the said order, he filed a recall application, which was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 11.02.2013. Raj Kumar filed Revision No.132/ 2012-13, under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1953, before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Varanasi, which has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 30.03.2015. The recall application filed by the petitioners for recall of the order dated 30.03.2015 was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 31.05.2019.
The orders dated 30.03.2015 and 31.05.2019 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 30.03.2015, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is without jurisdiction because once the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the recall application filed by Raj Kumar, the predecessor of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the matter should have been remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to pass fresh order, in accordance with law and the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction himself to pass the impugned orders, directing the correction in the records as stated in the order passed by him.
It is evident that the order dated 20.07.1989 was passed by the Consolidation Officer only on the statement given by Raj Kumar accepting that he was not the tenure holder of Khata No. 293 /Chak No. 270 and his name was wrongly recorded in the consolidation records. The said fact was denied by Raj Kumar in the recall application. The subordinate consolidation authorities have the power to correct the records prepared during the consolidation proceedings under the Act, 1953 only when there is clerical or arithmetical error in the preparation of records and the said corrections obviously cannot be done merely on the statements of the parties and has to be done after perusing the records.
A reading of the order dated 20.07.1989 shows that no records were considered by the Consolidation Officer before directing to expunge the name of Raj Kumar from Khata No. 293 / Chak No. 270.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no illegality in the order dated 30.03.2015, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation setting aside the order dated 20.07.1989, passed by the Consolidation Officer. Further, it is evident from the order dated 31.05.2019, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that Chak No. 270 was carved out from basic year Khata No. 293, 47 and 154. Raj Kumar was not the recorded co-tenure holder of Khata No. 293 in the basic year and was the recorded co-tenure holder of Khata No. 47 and 154. There is no order on record passed by any Consolidation Authority directing that the name of Raj Kumar be recorded as co-tenure holder of Khata No. 293 along with the petitioners or his name be expunged from Khata Nos. 47 and 154.
In the circumstances, there is no illegality in the order dated 30.03.2015, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation directing that the consolidation records be corrected by expunging the name of Raj Kumar from that part of Chak No. 270, which was constituted from Khata No. 293 but his name shall be retained on the part which was constituted from Khata Nos. 47 and 154. The order dated 03.03.2015 has been passed by the Deputy director of Consolidation after considering the records and there is no illegality in the said order.
So far as, the arguments of counsel for the petitioners regarding the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is concerned, it is sufficient to note that by virtue of Section 44-A of the Act, 1953, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has the power to exercise the powers and perform all duties which can be performed by the subordinate consolidation authorities.
In view of Section 44 A of the Act, 1953, there is no jurisdictional error in the order dated 30.03.2015. So far as the order dated 31.05.2019, is concerned it is apparent from the records that the order dated 30.03.2015, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not an ex-parte order and was passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as they had argued the case on 12.02.2015.
In view of the aforesaid, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly rejected the recall application filed by the petitioners through his order 31.05.2019.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Sweety
