Janak Singh and Others vs D.D.C. and Others

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Devendra Mohan Singh for the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 5.2.2013 and order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8.8.2013.

On the basis of sale-deed dated 18.7.2011, the petitioners filed an application u/s 6A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for mutating their names over the land in dispute. The Assistant Consolidation Officer by the order dated 1.9.2011 allowed the application of the petitioners and mutated their names over the land in dispute. Charan Singh (respondent-4) filed a miscellaneous application before Settlement Officer, Consolidation claiming therein that he had already purchased the land in dispute from Janak Singh (it''s tenure holder) through sale-deed dated 12.6.1984, as such, the Janak Singh had no right to sell the land in dispute to the petitioners and their sale-deed dated 18.7.2011 is void and his name cannot be mutated over the land in dispute. The SOC after hearing the parties, by order dated 2.5.2013, allowed the application of Charan Singh and set aside the order dated 1.9.2011, giving liberty to the parties to file their objections u/s 9 of the Act. The revision filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid order, has been dismissed by the order dated 8.8.2013.

The Counsel for the petitioner submits that SOC had no jurisdiction in the matter and the miscellaneous application filed before him was not liable to be entertained. The order passed by SOC is illegal and without jurisdiction. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Bhagwan Yadav and Jitendra Yadav Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, in which, it has been held that in view of the provision of section 41 of the Act, section 201 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 was applicable and remedy of the aggrieved person was to file an application for recall of the order before the ACO.

I have heard Counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.

Since the sale-deed of the petitioner is a subsequent sale-deed by the same person who had already sold the land in dispute to Charan Singh (respondent-4), accordingly, the claim of Charan Singh appears to be more appropriate. u/s 6A of the Act, the Assistant Consolidation Officer is authorized to decide undisputed cases. The present case was not an undisputed case, rather it was a disputed case. In any case, the order or proceeding u/s 6A does not bar the remedy of filing the objection u/s 9A(2) of the Act.

As such, at present, the petitioner has equally efficacious remedy before the consolidation authorities to file objection u/s 9 of the Act.

In this case, the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer, who had no jurisdiction to pass any order in disputed matter, will be restored in case order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation are set aside. Supreme Court in the following cases held that it is not proper for the High Court to restore an illegal order by setting aside another illegal order. Supreme Court in Mohammad Swalleh and Others Vs. Third Addl. District Judge, Meerut and Another, and Ramesh Chandra Sankla Etc. Vs. Vikram Cement Etc., held that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised for restoring illegal order. In State of U.P. Vs. District Judge, Unnao and Others, and Roshan Deen Vs. Preeti Lal, held the power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it. The very purpose of such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Courts is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. The lookout of the High Court is, therefore, not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law. If justice became the byproduct of an erroneous view of law the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting the error of law. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed.