Ram Pat vs D.D.C.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri C.K. Rai for the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12.9.1991, by which reference was accepted and the order of Consolidation Officer dated 10.11.1967 has been set aside and the land in dispute was directed to be recorded as Gaon Sabha land.

In basic consolidation year, the land in dispute was recorded as banjar, pokhri and abadi. It is alleged that the petitioners filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 10.11.1967, directed to record the names of the petitioners over the land in dispute. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 10.11.1967, Barsati and others filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, which is still pending.

In the meantime, on a complaint, an enquiry was conducted and the Assistant Consolidation Officer who submitted a report that the land in dispute was banjar, pokhri and abadi and it has been wrongly recorded in the name of the petitioners. According to the enquiry report, the names of petitioners have been mutated without any order of the competent authority. On the basis of this report, a reference has been submitted u/s 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for setting aside the entries and restoring the land in dispute in the name of Gaon Sabha. On the notice being issued of the reference, the petitioners appeared before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and filed an objection stating therein that as the appeal was pending against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 10.11.1967, as such, the validity of the order would be examined in the appeal and reference was not maintainable. However, Deputy Director of Consolidation has ignored the objection raised by the petitioners in this respect and proceeded to decide the matter on merit. Deputy Director of Consolidation in the judgment dated 12.9.1991 found that Case No. 17902 under sections 9A(1) of the Act, decided on 10.11.1967, was not registered in the Goswara Register at Sl. No. 50. At Sl. No. 50, another case has been registered. As such the alleged order of Consolidation Officer was fictitious and non existent, on the basis of which, the entries in favour of the petitioners were found to be fictitious entries. Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 12.9.1991 directed to expunge the entries of the names of the petitioners from the land in dispute and it was restored to Gaon Sabha.

The Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the appeal was pending, accordingly, it was not proper for Deputy Director of Consolidation to usurp the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court and decide the case on merit, that too on miscellaneous complaint of the stranger. He submits that under the Act, a procedure has been provided, accordingly, the orders passed by the authorities is required to be set aside/confirmed according to the procedure of the Act itself and no in any other way.

I have considered the arguments of Counsel for the petitioners and examined the record.

The impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of powers u/s 48(3) read with section 48(1) of the Act, which are quoted hereunder:--

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.

(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).

Thus, u/s 48(1) of the Act, Deputy Director of Consolidation has suo motu power to summon the record of any subordinate authority for 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. u/s 48(3) of the Act, the subordinate authorities are permitted to refer any matter to Deputy Director of Consolidation for taking action u/s 48(1) of the Act. In this case, on the complaint being received, an enquiry was made and it was found that the entries of the names of the petitioners over the land in dispute in consolidation record were fictitious, in as much as no case was registered in the names of the petitioners nor record or any order passed in any such case was available. In such circumstances, the reference has been submitted by subordinate authorities u/s 48(3) of the Act. The reference was well within the jurisdiction and on the reference being received Deputy Director of Consolidation had jurisdiction to pass order in it u/s 48(1) of the Act.

So far as the argument of Counsel for the petitioner that the appeal was pending, accordingly, Deputy Director of Consolidation was not authorized to usurp the jurisdiction of the appellate authority and decide the controversy in exercise of power u/s 48(1) of the Act is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court in Faujdar Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, has held that revision can directly be filed against any order of Consolidation Officer. In such circumstances, even if the matter was brought to the notice of Deputy Director of Consolidation by way of reference u/s 48(3) of the Act, exercise of power cannot be held to be illegal. No other ground has been raised before this Court. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.