Ram Karan Shukla vs D.D.C.Fatehpur and Others

R.H. Zaidi, J.—Present petition arises out of proceedings under Sections 20/21 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short ''the Act'', and is directed against the judgment and order dated 14121993 passed by Respondent No. 1 whereby revision filed by the contesting Respondents No. 2 to 6 was allowed.

It appears that the Assistant Consolidation Officer proposed to allot Chak No. 178 to the petitioner and chak No. 694 to the contesting respondents. The respondents filed objection that they were entitled to allotment of chak No. 178. The objection filed by contesting respondents was contested by the petitioner. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The Consolidation Officer upheld the claim of the petitioner and rejected the objection filed by the contesting respondents by his judgment and order dated 2741992. Challenging the validity of the said order, an appeal was filed by the contesting respondents before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer by his judgment and order dated 3061992. Thereafter, the contesting respondents filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation without recording any findings that the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was either irregular, improper, incorrect or illegal, interfered with and set aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and allotted the contesting respondents chak No. 178 by impugned order. Hence, the present petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 48 of the Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot act as a Consolidation Officer. He cannot interfere with the findings recorded by the authorities below and cannot substitute his own findings for the findings recording by them unless they are found to be incorrect, illegal or improper. The Respondent No. 1 in the impugned order, according to him, did not hold that the findings recorded by the authorities below were illegal or incorrect, but set aside the orders passed by the authorities below, therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents supported the validity of the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was urged that the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation were based on relevant evidence on the record. They were all findings of fact, which could not be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

Section 48 of the Act reads as under:

''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 interlocutory order passed by such authority in the case of proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case of proceedings as he thinks fit.

(2) Powers under subsection (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under subsection (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 subsection (1).

Explanation (1)For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers. Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation, Lekhpals 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 proceedings, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect of finally disposing Of such case or proceeding.''

From a reading of the aforesaid statutory provision, it is apparent that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may send for the record of any case or proceedings decided by (he authorities below to satisfy himself as to the regularity of the proceeding, or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than interlocutory orders passed by the authorities below. It is, thus, apparent that if the proceedings taken or orders are found irregular or the orders passed by the authorities below are found to be illegal, incorrect or improper, the Deputy Director of Consolidation can set aside the said proceedings or order and can allow a revision. In the present case, the requisite findings have not been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It has not been held that the proceedings held by the authorities below were in any manner, irregular or the orders passed by them were illegal, incorrect or improper. He has acted wholly illegally and arbitrarily in observing that the chaks of the parties were liable to be exchanged. The Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot act as the Consolidation Officer. He cannot substitute his findings for the findings recorded by the authorities below as a matter of course.

As stated above, the Deputy Director of Consolidation failed to point out any illegality in the findings recorded by the authorities below and erred in law in allowing the revision. The judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is, therefore, liable to be quashed and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 14121993 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby quashed. No orders as to costs. Petition allowed