Allahabad High Court
Chandrika Alias Chandra Shekhar ... vs State Of U.P. And 12 Others on 21 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42178
Court No. - 50
1. Case :- WRIT - B No. - 16 of 2023
Petitioner :- Chandrika Alias Chandra Shekhar (Deceased) And 8 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Pathak
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Syed Wajid Ali
AND
2. Case :- WRIT - B No. - 168 of 2023
Petitioner :- Chadrika Alias Chandra Shekhar (Deceased) And 8 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Pathak
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Syed Wajid Ali
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Syed Wazid Ali, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3/1 to 3/5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Brief facts of the case are that title proceeding under Section 9A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act (hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H Act) initiated against basic year entry came before this Court by way of Writ-B No. 4814 of 2018 at the instance of respondent no. 3/1 and this Court vide order dated 5.11.2019 allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders dated 14.1.2016 as well as 4.8.2018 and the matter was remitted back before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the Revision No. 216 and 294 within a period of three months in accordance with law. In pursuance of the order dated 5.11.2019, the Additional Collector/ Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 13.9.2022 allowed the revision, set aside the orders of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 26.2.2007 and 6.8.2007 as well as remitted the matter back before the Consolidation Officer, to decide the proceeding afresh. Hence Writ-B No. 16 of 2023 has been filed for the following relief:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 13.9.2022 passed by Additional Collector/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar (Annexure no. 6) in Revision No. 792 of 2022, Narendra & another Vs. Chandrika and others".
3. Writ-B No. 168 of 2023 has been filed for following relief:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 13.9.2022 passed by Additional Collector/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar (Annexure no. 6) in Revision No. 791 of 2022, Narendra & another Vs. Chandrika and others".
4. This Court entertained the matter on 27.1.2023 and stayed further proceeding before the Consolidation Officer in pursuance of the impugned order dated 13.9.2022.
5. In pursuance of the order dated 27.1.2023, parties have exchanged their affidavits,
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court decided the writ petition filed by the contesting respondent no. 3/1 and remitted the matter back before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the entire dispute within a period of three months, but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has remitted the matter back before the Consolidation Officer for fresh adjudication of dispute after setting the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement officer of Consolidation. He submitted that the Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement officer of Consolidation have already exercised their jurisdiction in accordance with law, as such there was no occasion to set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He submitted that in view of the provisions contained under Section 48 of U.P.CH. Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation can himself decide the entire dispute rather to remit the matter back before the Consolidation Officer. He further submitted that the impugned revisional order should be set aside.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Syed Wazid Ali, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3/1 to 3/5 submitted that there is no illegality in the revisional order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, as the finding of fact has been recorded in support of the impugned revisional order. He submitted that the Consolidation Officer has not properly decided the matter, as such the matter has rightly been remitted back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the entire dispute afresh.
8. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. There is no dispute about the fact that title revision has been decided under the impugned order and the matter has been remitted back before the Consolidation Officer for fresh adjudication of the dispute under section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act after setting aside the earlier orders of the Consolidation Officers and Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation.
10. In order to appreciate the dispute involved in the matter perusal of Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act alongwith explanation will be relevant which are as under.
"48. [ 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. This Court in the case reported in 2020(148) RD 114; Smt. Lakshmania (dead) through Lrs Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation & others has considered the scope of Section 48 in view of amendment made by U.P. Act No. 3 of 2002 & has held that Section -48 Explanation 3 of U.P.C.H. Act is a unique provision. Paragraph no. 44 of the judgment rendered by this Court in Smt Lakshmania (Supra) will be relevant for perusal which is as under"-
"44. In this case, the objections were filed in the year 1981, and, therefore, the amended provisions of Section 48, operative retrospectively, would squarely apply. Under the amended statute, the Revisional Court has been conferred with unique powers by virtue of the added Explanation 3 to go into the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by an Authority below, whether on fact or law, and includes the powers to appreciate any oral or documentary evidence. Thus, to the understanding of this Court, in view of the added Explanation by U.P. Act no. 3 of 2002, retrospectively w.e.f. 10.11.1980, the Revisional Court is in no manner inhibited from examining any question of fact or law, or appreciating evidence whether documentary or oral, virtually like any other Court of fact and law. It is a unique position that the Revisional Authority enjoys, under Section 48 of the Act, conventionally not associated with the exercise of revisional jurisdiction."
12. In view of the provisions contained under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act as well as the ratio of law laid down by this Court inSmt. Lakshmania (Supra), the impugned revisonal order passed by the respondent no. 2 - Additional Collector / Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
13. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned revisional order dated 13.9.2022 passed in Revision No. 791 of 2022 & 792 of 2022 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.
14. The writ petitions stands allowed and the matter is remitted back before respondent no. 2 / Additional Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation with a direction to register the revisions on their original numbers and decide the same afresh on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is further directed that till the disposal of the aforementioned revisons by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, no third party interest shall be created by the parties to dispute in respect to plot in question
Order Date :- 21.3.2025
S.K.S.
