Rajendar Prasad vs Deputy Director Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8926 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on 17.03.2023
 
Delivered on 27.03.2023
 
Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1212 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajendar Prasad
 
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Varanasi And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,Sunil Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1. Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. Briefs facts of the case are that Plot No. 526/15 which originally belongs to petitioner was exchanged by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer and petitioner was allotted Plot No. 526/29 area 4.5 air (,;j) in lieu of his Plot No. 526/15 in the proceeding under Section 21(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and order dated 13.06.2008 was passed by the respondent no.3/Consolidation Officer Pindra, Varansi, allotting Plot No. 557 area 112 air (,;j) without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as the petitioner was not impleaded in the proceeding. Petitioner filed an appeal no. 62/110/182 on 18.04.2011 challenging the order dated 13.06.2008 passed by the respondent no.3/ Consolidation Officer Pindra, Varansi. The appeal was accompanied by application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Respondent no.2/ Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Varanasi, vide order dated 13.02.2014 condoned delay in filing the appeal as well as partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of Consolidation Officer dated 13.06.2008 resulting into the allotment of Plot No. 526/28 area 0.074 air (,;j) to the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the appellate order dated 13.02.2014 through revision under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 along with the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. In revision the prayer was made for allotment of Plot No. 150/7 and 150/8 as Plot No. 526/28 which was allotted to the petitioner by appellate Court, was already allotted to some other tenure holder. The revision was numbered as Revision No. 847 of 2020. In the aforementioned revision on 23.06.2020, respondent no.1/ Deputy Director, Consolidation, Varanasi called for report and 1.07.2020 was fixed for orders. In pursuance of the order dated 23.06.2020, a report was submitted on 27.06.2020 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, alongwith the Chak amendment table mentioning the Plot No. 150/7 and 150/8 should be allotted to the petitioner. On 01.07.2020 next date 14.07.2020 was fixed. On 14.07.2020 record of Gaon Sabha was summoned and next date was fixed on which date the Deputy Director of Consolidation seen the record and fixed 04.08.2020 in the revision. On 17.08.2020, Deputy Director of Consolidation passed an order calling for another Chak amendment table alongwith record in order to decide the dispute in proper manner and 18.08.2020 was fixed. Petitioner filed an application to recall the order dated 17.08.2020. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 20.08.2020 set aside the orders dated 20.03.2020 and 17.08.2020 and summoned the original file of the courts below to decide the matter afresh and also cancelled the earlier Chak amendment table fixing 27.08.2000 in the matter. Hence, this writ petition.

3. This Court on 21.10.2020 entertained the writ petition and granted the interim order staying the further proceeding of Revision No. 847 of 2020. In pursuance of the order dated 21.10.2020 the State has filed his counter affidavit alongwith stay vacation application and petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit also.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has actually exercised the jurisdiction of review while passing the order dated 20.08.2020 in setting aside the earlier orders dated 23.06.2020 in 17.08.2020 by which the Chak amendment table/report were called and submitted in the revision. He further submitted that once the Chak amendment table has been submitted, the Deputy Director Consolidation cannot set aside that Chak amendment table and calling for another report/Chak amendment table. He further submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 23.06.2020, the Chak amendment table and reports were submitted in the revision, as such, the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to set aside those orders/Chak amendment table/reports and call for another report/Chak amendment table.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the full Bench Judgement of this Court reported in 1997 RD 562 Smt.Shivraji and others vs. Deputy Director Consolidation, Allahabad and others, in order to demonstrate that Consolidation Court has no jurisdiction to review his order.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the Gram Sabha submitted that no final order has been passed in the revision under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, filed by the petitioner, as such, there is no question of exercise the review jurisdiction by the revisional Court. They further submitted that Deputy Director Consolidation, by the impugned order set aside the earlier Chak amendment table and call for another report/Chak amendment table as well as the records of the Court below as the same was not summoned while passing the earlier orders. They further submitted that the judgment of full Bench will not apply in the petitioner's case as the revision has not been finally decided rather only report alongwith chak amendment table and by impugned orders cancelling the earlier chak amendment table, another chak amendment table as well as records has been called/summoned.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that Chak revision filed by petitioner under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is still pending before the Deputy Director Consolidation.

9. There is also no dispute about the fact that vide earlier orders, report/Chak amendment table was called by the revisional Court, accordingly, the same were submitted but by subsequent orders, Deputy Director Consolidation called for another Chak amendment table as well as for summoning the records of the court below for  the effective decision of the Chak revision filed by the petitioner.

10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, will be relevant which is as under:

"Section 48 of U.P. C.H. Act

Revision and reference. - (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] 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.

(2) Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub-section (3).

(3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1).

[Explanation. -] [(1)] For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation.

Explanation (2) - 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.

[Explanation (3). - The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence."

11. The perusal of the orders passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation will be also relevant which is as under:

23-6-2020

आज पत्रावली पेश हुई निगरानीकर्ता को सुना गया, निगरानी के सन्दर्भ में ए०सी०ओ० रामनरान अपनी आख्या एवं सन्दर्भ संशोधित तालिका सहित दिनांक 30-6-20 तक प्रस्तुत करे। पत्रावली वास्ते आदेश दिनांक 01-7-2020 को पेश हो।

ह० अस्पष्ट"

************

17-8-2020

न्यायालय उप संचालक चकबंदी वाराणसी

निगरानी सं० 847 अन्तर्गत धारा 48 जो०च०अ०

राजेन्दर बनाम गाँव सभा

ग्राम-कोईराजपुर, परगना- अठगावाँ, तहसील-पिण्डरा, जिला-वाराणसी

17-8-2020

पत्रावली प्रस्तुत पत्रावली वास्ते आदेश नियत है। निगरानीकर्ता की बहस सुनी जा चुकी है। पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया पत्रावली के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि निगरानीकर्ता के पक्ष को सुनने के पश्चात् तत्कालीन पीठाधीश अधिकारी के द्वारा दिये गये आदेश के अनुक्रम में चक संशोधन तालिका दिनांक 27-6-20 को प्रस्तुत हुई परन्तु उनका स्थानान्तरण हो जाने के कारण आदेश नही हो सका ऐसे में नये सिरे से परीक्षण किया गया पुनः संशोधित चक संशोधन तालिका पृथक से मय अभिलेख दिनांक 18-8-20 प्रस्तुत किया जाये जिससे विस्तृत आदेश जारी किया जा सके पत्रावली 18-8-20 को पेश हो।

ह० अस्पष्ट

(सत्य प्रतिलिपि)

**************************

20-8-2020

"बअदालत उप संचालक चकबंदी, वाराणसी

निगरानी संख्या 847/2020

राजेन्द्र ------- बनाम ------ गांवसभा

धारा- 48/3 जो०च०अ०

मौजा कोईराजपुर परगना अठगांवा जिला वाराणसी।

20-8-2020

पत्रावली प्रस्तुत निगरानीकर्ता के अधिवक्ता उपस्थित उनके द्वारा अनुरोध किया गया कि अवर न्यायालय की पत्रावली तलब कर निगरानी में वाद पत्र पर बहस सुना जाय। पत्रावली में पूर्व पारित आदेश 23-6-2000, 17-8-2000 निरस्त किये जाते है। मूल पत्रावली तलब कर नये सिरे से वाद पत्र पर सुनवाई की जाय। पूर्व में प्रस्तुत सभी संशोधित तालिक निरस्त की जाती है। पत्रावली दिनांक 27-8-2000 को पेश हो।

ह० अस्पष्ट

12. The perusal of the aforementioned three orders of the Deputy Director Consolidation reveals that Deputy Director Consolidation set aside the earlier interim orders dated 23.06.2020 and 17.08.2020 for the proper decision of the Chak revision. The impugned order dated 20.08.2020 also speak that record of the Court below were summoned on the earlier occasion, as such the same was also summoned.

13. So far as the full Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Shivraji (supra) is concerned, the same will be applicable in respect to the final orders passed by Consolidation Court.

14. Paragraph Nos. 24 & 41 of the judgment rendered in Smt. Shivraji (supra) will be relevant for perusal which are as under:

"24. On the authoritative pronouncements made by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision, the legal position which is manifest is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising the power of revision vested in him under the Consolidation Act exercises quasi-judicial powers and in the absence of any provision in the Consolidation Act, which expressly or by necessary implication vests in him the power of review, he cannot exercise such power. It follows that the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not competent to revive a revision proceeding disposed of by a final order on a review application filed by one of the parties."

41. On the discussions in the forging 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 the judgment."

15. The perusal of the aforementioned paragraph nos. 24 & 41 of the full Bench judgment rendered in Smt. Shiv Raji (Supra) demonstrate that Deputy Director Consolidation is not competent to revive revision proceeding disposed of by a final order on a review application filed by one of the parties.

16. In the instant matter, the Deputy Director Consolidation passed certain interim orders for calling the report etc. which have been set aside resulting into calling another report, as such, the full Bench judgment rendered in Shiv Raji (Supra) will not be applicable in the instant case, as revision is still pending for final decision before the revisional court.

17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the ratio of law laid down by full Bench of this Court in Smt. Shiv Raji (Supra) no interference is required against the impugned order.

18. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 27.3.2023

Imtiyaz