Nidan Singh (dead) and another vs Dy.Director of Consolidation, Meerut and others

Vikram Nath, J.—Heard Sri V.S. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Kunwar R.C. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5.

This petition has been filed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut dated 1.12.1982 whereby revision died by Rameshwar Singh, respondent No. 4 was allowed and after setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27.8.1982, the Deputy Director of Consolidation restored the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 31.1.1982.

Before the Consolidation Officer the petitioners had filed objections that plot Nos. 465 and 488, which had been reserved for school, may be dereserved and recorded in their name. According to the petitioners there was already existing a school in the village, which had sufficient open land for being used as playground for the children studying in the school. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objections of the petitioners vide order dated 31.1.1982. Against the same the petitioners filed recall application, which was also rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 2.3.1982. Aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who agreed with the contentions of the petitioners and after recording the finding that the reservation of two plots for school was not warranted, allowed the appeal vide order dated 27.8.1982. Against the said order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Rameshwar Singh, who is alleged to be the then Pradhan of the village, in his personal capacity, filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The said revision has been allowed by the impugned order.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is two fold; firstly, that Rameshwar Singh, respondent No. 4 had no personal interest in the land in dispute and, therefore, the revision filed by him in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the Gaon Sabha without a valid resolution through the panel of lawyers, was not maintainable. The second submission in that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not examine the case on merits but allowed the revision only on the ground that the Consolidation Officer in his order dated 2.3.1982, rejecting the recall application had recorded that the petitioners had been heard before passing the order dated 31.1.1982 and, therefore, according to the Deputy Director of Consolidation the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 2.3.1982 did not require any interference by the appellate authority. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners the Deputy Director of Consolidation erred while allowing the revision on technical grounds without considering the merits of the case.

I have also perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Secretary of the Land Management Committee wherein also the fact that there was no resolution of the Gaon Sabha/Land Management Committee to file the revision, has not been denied. Further, no personal Interest of the Pradhan had been shown.

Having considered the submissions made, this Court is of the view that the revision itself was not maintainable at the behest of Rameshwar Singh in his personal capacity. Without there being a valid resolution of the Gaon Sabha or the Land Management Committee, the revision could not have been filed by the Pradhan in individual capacity. Pradhan had no person interest in the land in dispute. Further the Deputy Director of Consolidation, under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 had ample powers to decide the matter on merits. Once the entire record was before him, allowing the revision without considering the merits of the case, vitiates the order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation had not considered the reasoning given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation while allowing the appeal and in, absence of having dealt with those findings, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained.

In view of above discussion, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained and it is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation is maintained.

There shall be no order as to costs.