Rajendra Prasad vs D.D.C.

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Shri Suresh Chandra Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vidya Dhar Yadav, who has filed a caveat on behalf of the respondent No. 3. Notices are not issued to the other respondents in the writ petition in view of the order proposed to be passed. However, it will be open to the said respondents to prefer a recall application in case, they feel aggrieved by this order.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer (the C.O.), the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (the S.O.C.) as also the Deputy Director of Consolidation (the D.D.C.) which have been passed in proceedings arising out of an objection u/s 9A2 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. An order was passed in favour of the petitioners on 31.1.1981 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of conciliation. The contesting respondents filed a time barred appeal along with an application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit. The S.O.C. allowed the appeal by his order dated 28.7.1983 and remanded the matter to the C.O.

The petitioner filed an application for recall of this order on the same day on the ground that it was an ex parte order.

The S.O.C. by his order dated 3.5.1986 dismissed the recall application on the ground that it was directed against an order of remand.

Aggrieved by the order rejecting the recall application, the petitioners filed a revision. The D.D.C. by the impugned order dated 3.2.2014 has rejected the revision on the ground that it was directed against an interlocutory order of remand and, therefore, the same was not maintainable. Hence this writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed this order and has contended that the view taken by the D.D.C. is patently illegal the contrary to the decision rendered by this Court wherein it has been held that an order of remand is a final order and that a revision against such an order is maintainable. The Division Bench relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is Deena Nath and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, .

Learned Counsel for the caveator has tried to justify the order impugned but he ultimately conceded that it is contrary to the law settled by the Division Bench supra.

In view of the settled legal position that an order of remand passed by the S.O.C. is not an interlocutory order and, therefore, amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the D.D.C., the order passed by the D.D.C. cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, I set aside the order dated 3.2.2014 and remand back the matter to the DDC, Jaunpur to pass a fresh order on merits after hearing all the concerned parties.

It is further provided that the parties shall appear before the DDC, Jaunpur on 27.5.2014 along with a certified copy of this order. The D.D.C. shall thereafter hear the matter and pass appropriate order thereon in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. This exercise may be completed by the D.D.C. within a period of four weeks from the date fixed namely, 27.5.2014. Accordingly and subject to the directions/observations herein above, this writ petition is allowed in part.