Kaloo Ram and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Krishna Murari, J.—Heard Shri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashok Srivastava for the Petitioners and Shri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Amit Kumar Chaudhary for the contesting Respondents

On the basis of the consent given by the learned Counsel for the parties recorded in the order dated 27.01.2011, the writ petition is being finally disposed of without calling for a counter affidavit.

Dispute between the parties is in respect of the shares in the land in dispute which is ancestral. During consolidation proceedings, the Petitioners as well as predecessor-in-interest of contesting Respondents filed objections u/s 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The objections came to be disposed of on the basis of an alleged conciliation between the parties by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 14.12.1974 and the shares of the parties were determined in accordance with the terms enumerated in the compromise. Respondent No. 7 and predecessor-in-interest of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 challenged the same by filing an appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 29.07.1981 and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute afresh after framing issues and giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Consolidation Officer decided the dispute between the parties vide order dated 27.01.1992. The parties again went up in appeal. Appeals were filed mainly on the ground that after the order dated 14.12.1974 was passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of reconciliation, some of the co-sharers have sold part of the land in question by executing sale deeds, the effect of which, has not been considered by the Consolidation Officer in its order dated 27.01.1992. Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 11.06.1997 allowed the appeals and again remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer for a fresh adjudication. The dispute between the parties came to be decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 15.01.2001. Two appeals were preferred against the order of Consolidation Officer which were dismissed vide order dated 25.08.2003. Against the appellate order, two revisions were preferred. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide judgment and order dated 19.11.2010 allowed the 2 Revision No. 38 filed by predecessor-in-interest of Respondent No. 4 and others, whereas Revision No. 468 filed by the Petitioners was came to be dismissed. Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the judgment and order dated 15.01.2001 passed by Consolidation Officer and 25.08.2003 passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation and affirmed the earlier order dated 27.01.1992 passed by Consolidation Officer.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the order dated 27.01.1992 which has been upheld by the impugned order was already set aside by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 11.06.1997 and Deputy Director of Consolidation has acted illegally in holding that the shares of the parties will be determined in accordance with the said order. It has further been contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has neither considered the case of the parties nor made any assessment of evidence brought on record and in a very slip shot manner, has simply upheld the order dated 27.01.1992 without returning any finding of his own.

In reply, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has tried to justify the impugned order.

I have considered the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From a perusal of the impugned order, there appears to be force in the submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioners. Deputy Director of Consolidation has only recorded the facts of the case and arguments of the parties and without even referring to the evidence adduced in the case, has simply set aside the orders dated 15.01.2001 passed by Consolidation Officer and 25.08.2003 passed Settlement Officer, Consolidation and affirmed the earlier order dated 27.01.1992 passed by Consolidation Officer on the ground that the same has been passed after framing issues and assessment of evidence and is a valid and legal order.

Undoubtedly, order dated 27.01.1992 was set aside in appeal and after remand, Consolidation Officer decided the dispute afresh vide order dated 15.01.2001 which was affirmed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in appeal vide order dated 25.08.2003. Deputy Director of Consolidation without discussing the evidence which formed the basis of the findings of the aforesaid two orders passed by subordinate consolidation authorities and without setting aside the findings recorded on the basis of the same, has by means of his slip shot order, in a very cursory manner just reiterated the order dated 27.01.1992 passed by the 3 Consolidation Officer, which afterwards was set aside in appeal, only on the ground that the same was passed after framing issues and on the basis of evidence of the parties.

The impugned judgment passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation since is reversal of the judgments of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation, he was under a legal obligation to consider the evidence that formed the basis of the findings of the subordinate authorities and after assessing the evidence, ought to have returned its own findings. Deputy Director of Consolidation being last court of fact and law, it was incumbent upon him to discuss the evidence and returned his own findings. Without assessment of evidence and the findings returned on the basis of same, a judgment cannot be said to be a judgment in the eyes of law.

A mere indication in the impugned order that order dated 27.01.1992 passed by Consolidation Officer is based on evidence and, hence, liable to be reaffirmed cannot be said to be justified without considering that the said order was already set aside in appeal and thereafter a fresh decision by the Consolidation Officer after discussing the evidence adduced by the parties came into existence.

In view of the above facts and discussions, the impugned order dated 19.11.2010 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is not liable to be sustained and is hereby quashed. Writ petition stands allowed.

The dispute stands remitted back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revisions afresh after recording his own findings on the basis of evidence existing on record.