Allahabad High Court
Vijayveer Singh vs Deputy Director Of ... on 19 March, 2021
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 99 of 2021
Petitioner :- Vijayveer Singh
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Amroha And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shanker Yadav,Manish Dev
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ganesh Mani
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Sri Satyapriya Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Manish Dev, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by the impugned order dated 05.02.2020, the revising court has entertained the recall application tendered by the respondents against the earlier order dated 06.10.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation deciding the matter finally.
It is contended by Sri Satyapriya Mishra, that while passing the impugned order the Deputy Director of Consolidation reallocated the chakks without causing the spot inspection to be conducted. It is also submitted that the recall application was in fact a defacto review. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has reviewed the earlier order dated 06.10.2018 by exceeding its jurisdiction conferred by law.
He has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Shivraji and others Vs. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad reported at 1997 (88) Rev Dec 562. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:
"36. Coming to the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, it is our considered view that the consolidation authorities, particularly the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding a revision petition exercised judicial or quasi judicial power and, therefore his order is final subject to any power of appeal or revision vested in superior authority under the Act. The consolidation authorities, particularly the Deputy Director of Consolidation, is not vested with any power of review of his order and, therefore, cannot reopen any proceeding and cannot review or revise his earlier order. However, as a judicial or quasi judicial authority he has the power to correct any clerical mistake/ arithmetical error, manifest error in his order in exercise of his inherent power as a tribunal. "
Sri Ganesh Mani, learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the aforesaid facts or the position of law.
The dispute only involves question of law. Learned counsel for both the parties agree that no useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before this Court. With the consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally.
In the light of the submissions made by the parties, I find that the law laid down by the full Bench of this Court in the case of Shivraji (supra) is clearly applicable to the facts of the case. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by passing the impugned order reviewed his earlier order dated 06.10.2018. The impugned order dated 05.02.2020 is in the teeth of law laid down by the full Bench of this Court in the case of Shivraji (supra).
The order dated 05.02.2020 is liable to be set aside and his set said.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 19.3.2021
Nadeem Ahmad
