Mukesh Kumar vs Shyam Singh & Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

Petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 17.12.2020 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar in Consolidation Revision No. 08/2016-17.

Respondents filed an appeal under Section 11(1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before Settlement Officer, Consolidation against the order dated 23.02.2010 passed by Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, whereby their restoration application was dismissed. The said appeal was accompanied with a delay condonation application. Learned Consolidation Officer allowed the delay condonation application vide order dated 28.09.2017 and admitted the appeal filed by the respondents fixing 13.10.2017 for hearing.

Petitioner challenged the order dated 28.09.2017 by filing a revision under Section 48 of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, which was numbered as Consolidation Revision No. 8 of 2016-17. Learned Revisional Authority/Deputy Director, Consolidation, Haridwar vide judgment dated 17.12.2020 has dismissed the revision of the petitioner, as not maintainable, by holding that order passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, allowing delay condonation application is an interlocutory order and no revision lies against such an order.

Section 48 of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which provides remedy of revision to an aggrieved person, is reproduced below:

"48. Revision and reference.- (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order [other than an interlocutory order] passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit.

(2) Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub-section (3).

(3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1).]

[Explanation.-[(1)] For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation Lekh pals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation.]

[Explanation (2)-For the purposes of this section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceeding, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding.]"

Careful reading of Section 48(1) of the Act reveals that no revision lies against an interlocutory order. Explanation (2) to Section 48 of the Act further clarifies that interlocutory order means such order, which decides any matter arising in a case or proceeding as does not have the effect of finally disposing of such case or proceeding.

Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment dated 17.02.2020 rendered by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar. He contends that the order passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, allowing the delay condonation application of the respondents, is an interlocutory order and no revision under Section 48 of the Act is maintainable against such interlocutory order. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Paras Nath Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti and others, reported in 2002 (93) RD 764 and Sukhjinder Jeet Kaur and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rampur and others, reported in 2003 (94) RD 353.

Per contra, Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order, allowing delay condonation application, cannot be treated to be an interlocutory order and such order is subject to revisional jurisdiction of Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Paras Nath Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, reported in 2008 (2) AWC 1532 [2002 (3) ALJ 464].

Perusal of the judgment relied by petitioner's counsel reveals that learned Single Judge of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, after considering the Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Mst. Kailashi Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, reported in 1972 (RD) 80, has held that order condoning the delay terminates the proceeding under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, hence, the same cannot be treated to be an interlocutory order and such order is subject to revisional jurisdiction of Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Paragraph nos. 14 & 15 of the said judgment are reproduced below:

"14. The judgments, which have been relied by counsel for respondent No. 3 in Paras Nath's case (supra), Sukhjinder Jeet Kaur's case (supra) and Dhanush Raj's case (supra) were the judgments in which earlier Division Bench judgment was not noticed. The Judgment in Paras Nath's case (supra) was relied in Sukhjinder Jeet Kaur's case (supra). The order condoning the delay in filing an objection, which was barred by time cannot be treated to be an interlocutory order not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Coming to the facts of the present case, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has refused to enter into the merits of condonation and has rejected the revision only on the ground that the order of Consolidation Officer is interlocutory and the revision is not entertainable.

In view of the foregoing discussions, it is clear that an order passed by Consolidation Officer condoning the delay in an objection under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 terminates the proceeding under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, hence the same cannot be treated to be an interlocutory order and is subject to revisional jurisdiction of Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953."

This Court is in respectful agreement with the view taken by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Paras Nath Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, reported in 2008 (2) AWC 1532 [2002(3) ALJ 464]. The order passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, allowing the delay condonation application filed by the respondents and condoning the delay in filing the appeal, cannot be treated as an interlocutory order, therefore, dismissal of the revision filed by petitioner by Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground of maintainability, is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 17.12.2020 is quashed and Revision No. 8 of 2016-17 is restored to the file of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar.

Since the revision was filed in the year 2017 and four years have gone by, therefore, this Court hopes and expects that learned Deputy Director of Consolidation would make every endeavour to decide the said revision as early as possible, preferably within six months. Unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties should be avoided.