Lala Ram and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

G.S.N. Tripathi, J.—This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 7.7.94 and 7.9.94 (Annexures 6 and 7 to the petition) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur Dehat. He has further prayed for a writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to carve out the chak of the Petitioners absolutely in accordance with appellate order dated 6.8.83 (Annexure 1) along with its correction slip and form 23 issued in favour of the Petitioners vide Annexure 2.

It appears that both the lower courts acted under a misapprehension. Therefore, the correct facts were not appreciated by them.

The order dated 6.8.83 was passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (S.O.C.), Kanpur in appeal No. 183 Raja Ram Chakvar No. 268 v. State of Uttar Pradesh filed by the Petitioners. Two chaks were allotted to them as they had desired. Form 23 was accordingly issued vide Annexures 1 and 2.

At a later stage, it seems that some bungling was made in the records and the consolidation scheme approved by the S.O.C. (supra) was disturbed by the Consolidator.

The Petitioners moved an application before the S.O.C. for correction of the same. The S.O.C. sent a reference disapproving the prayer made by the Petitioners. The Dy. Director of Consolidation (D.D.C.), Kanpur Dehat rejected the same as a revision had been filed by the Petitioners, which had not been mentioned therein, whereas, the Petitioners have denied that they ever filed any revision. An application for review was also rejected by the learned D.D.C. on 7.9.94. Therefore, this petition has been filed.

Once the consolidation scheme was made final by the order dated 6.8.83, passed by the S.O.C., against which no appeal had been preferred, there was no question of disturbing the chaks allotted to the Petitioners. But a disturbance was made and the Petitioners were constrained to move an application u/s 42A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. That section gives power to the Consolidation Officer or the S.O.C. to correct the clerical and arithmetical error apparent on the face of the record, existing in any document prepared under the provisions of the Act. This way, the S.O.C. or CO. himself should have corrected the arithmetical and clerical error as desired by the Petitioners. There was no question of their making any reference to the D.D.C. The reference was clearly misguided and unwarranted. The result was that the D.D.C. who passed the disputed orders on the basis of this reference, also acted without any Jurisdiction. Instead of appreciating the points, the authorities below acted on a technical consideration and carried a miscarriage of justice, as the Petitioners have been disallowed the reliefs prayed without assigning any reason for the same.

Another error committed by the learned D.D.C. was that he acted under a misapprehension that against the order dated 6.8.93, the Petitioners had filed a revision and since the revision had not been mentioned by them in the correction application, therefore, the relief was refused to them. This is really bewildering. The order dated 6.8.83 was passed by the S.O.C. on the appeal of the Petitioners. They were fully satisfied with this order. So the question of their filing a revision against this order never arose. The result was that there could be no revision against the order, against which the Petitioners had no grievance at all. The learned S.O.C. and D.D.C., therefore, committed a grave error in not considering this aspect of the case. The result is that both the orders passed by the learned S.O.C. as well as the D.D.C. are without application of mind.

Whenever there is a wrong, there must be a remedy and that remedy has been provided in Section 42A of the aforesaid Act. Instead of giving remedy u/s 42A of the aforesaid Act, the learned S.O.C., committed a grave error by shirking the responsibility which the law casts upon him and making an A.W.C. 10 unlawful reference to the D.D.C. The result is that the orders emanating therefrom are liable to be quashed.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The orders passed by the D.D.C. as well as S.O.C. are set aside. A mandamus is issued to the S.O.C. (Respondent No. 2) and Consolidation Officer. (Record Operation), Respondent No. 3 to correct the record in pursuance of the order dated 6.8.83 after hearing the Petitioners and others, if any other person is aggrieved thereby. This is a very old matter. It will be desirable that the Respondents 2 and 3 decide the matter within 3 months of the receipt of this order passed today. Cost easy.