Maqbool and Ors. vs D.D.C.& Ors.

R.K. Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Dinesh Pathak holding brief of Sri S.D. Pathak in support of the writ petitioner and Mr. Tripathi E.G. Bhai for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

The point canvassed by Mr. Pathak, is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has no power to review his own order. Referring the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 2821989 Annexure11, 1141991, AnnexureIII, 671991, AnnexurelV, 431993, AnnexureIV, and 861994 AnnexureVII Mr. Pathak has successfully made out a point that by the impugned order dated 861994 and 431993 the Deputy Director of Consolidation has reviewed the order dated 1141991 by which order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has restored the revision petition to its original number and had fixed 651991 for deciding the revision petition on merits and had recalled his order dated 2821989 AnnexureII. Later on 671991 the revision petitions were dismissed for default due to absence of the revisionists who are respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before this Court. The order dismissing the revision in default as well as the order dated 1141991 through which the revision petitions were restored to their original numbers and were fixed for hearing, both the orders were recalled. The petitioner''s objection against the recall order has been rejected by the order Annexure7. In this way the order recalling the order dated 282''1989 and restoring the revision petition to their original number have been set aside and reviewed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which power he does not possess as per the Full Bench Decision of this Court reported in the case of Smt. Shivraji & Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others reported in 1997 (88) R.D. Page 562.

Mr. Tripathi B.C. Bhai has. of course, tried to convince that the order dated 2821989 was passed after full hearing of both the parties, therefore, this order could not be recalled by the order dated 1141991 AnnexureIII but this aspect is not to be considered in this writ petition because the reasons given in the order dated 1141991 were not challenged before this Court at any occasion and that order became final. 11 the revision petitions were fixed for hearing on 671991 there was no reason for setting aside the order dated 1141991. Whatever the adverse order was passed on 671991 that could have been recalled and the parties should have been heard and the revision petitions should have been decided on merits as per order dated 1141991. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has gone beyond his jurisdiction by reviewing the order dated 1141991 and reviewed his own order which he had passed on the prayer of the writ petitioner after hearing both the parties after assigning good reasons.

This Court feels that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no power to review his own order dated 1141991. Accordingly this writ petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. The parties should be heard and the revision petitions should he decided on merits as per order dated 1141991. Since it is old matter therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to expedite the matter and try to decide the same within six months. Parties will bear their own costs.