Mange Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

This writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. During the consolidation proceedings in village "Harjoli Jat", Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar, the orders were passed by the Consolidation Officer on 29.03.20o3, whereby effectively chaks were distributed to tenure holders. This order was challenged in two appeals being Appeal No. 1289 of 2003, Harbir Singh v. Dharampal & others and Appeal No. 988 of 2003, Mangeram v. Anuj. The appellate authority did not find any merit in the appeals and both the appeals were dismissed vide order dated 06.11.2003. Thereafter present petitioner before this Court moved a restoration/review petition for setting aside the order dated 06.11.2003 and for hearing the appeal. The appellate authority vide order dated 16.02.2004 allowed the application and set aside its earlier order dated 06.11.2003 and modified the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 29.03.2003. This order was challenged by the private respondents before the Deputy Director Consolidation in a revision. In the revision primarily two grounds were taken - (A) Settlement Officer Consolidation has no power to review its own order as the power to review is a statutory power and that has not been conferred under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and (B) there is no infirmity in the order dated 29.03.2003 passed by the consolidation officer. The revisional authority came to the conclusion that the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation is without jurisdiction and he has no power to review its order. The Deputy Director Consolidation/revisional authority himself made spot inspection and as per the spot inspection, the order of the Consolidation Officer was found to be correct, and the order of the appellate authority i.e. the Settlement Officer was set aside. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

As regarding the power of Consolidation authorities, Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the private respondent has cited a Full Bench Judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Shivraji and others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others reported in (1997) 31 ALR 680 and would rely upon paragraph 37 of the judgment, which reads as under:-

"37. Coming to the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, it is our considered view that the consolidation authorities, particularly the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding a revision petition exercises judicial or quasi judicial power and, therefore his order is final subject to any power of appeal or revision vested in superior authorities under the Act. The consolidation authorities, particularly the Deputy Director of Consolidation, is not vested with any power of review of his order and, therefore, cannot reopen any proceedings and cannot review or revise his earlier order. However, as a judicial or quasi judicial authority he has the power to correct any clerical mistake/arithmetical error, manifest error in his order in exercise of his inherent power as a tribunal."

Although the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also that the appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority on 06.11.2003 without giving any effective hearing to the appellant/petitioner.

However, the order dated 06.11.2003 has been perused. The appeal itself has been filed by none other than the petitioner Mange Ram. The order dated 6.11.2003 clearly shows that both the appellant as well as the respondent were heard and only then the order was passed. In any case, effectively what the appellant has done that though he moved an application for restoration, but effectively it was moved for review of the order dated 6.11.2003 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which cannot be done as already held in the case of Smt. Shivraji and others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others reported in (1997) 31 ALR 680.

It is settled principle of law that the consolidation authorities are not vested with any power to review their order and therefore the Settlement Officer Consolidation has no power to review its earlier order. There is hence no infirmity in findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, as far as it relates to the petitioner.

There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.