Sharda Devi and Others vs Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri S.C. Tripathi for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for State of U.P. and Sri Kaushlendra Kumar for the contesting respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.9.2014 passed in chak allotment matters.

By the impugned order the Deputy Director of Consolidation disturbed the chak of the petitioner on plot Nos. 258 and 259 and the portion of the chak which has been allotted to the petitioners has been allotted in the chak of Kanchan, respondent-2 and chak of respondents has been allotted to the petitioners. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that the revisions were time barred and the Deputy Director of Consolidation without condoning the delay allowed the revision. He further submits that the Lower Court''s record has not been summoned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as such he has no jurisdiction to exercise the revisional jurisdiction under section 48 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. In such circumstances, the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

So far as the summoning of the record is concerned, the Counsel for the respondents does not dispute about non-summoning the record. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is decided finally.

The first point raised by the Counsel for the petitioners that without condoning the delay the revision was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, is concerned, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has proceeded that revision was within time. In any case Full Bench of this Court in Ramakant Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P. and Others, AIR 1975 All 126 , has held that once the record has been summoned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation then irrespective of the fact that delay was not liable to be condoned, he can decide the revision on merit by exercising his suo motu powers under section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Thus the main ground turns on the question as to whether the record was summoned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation or not. As the Counsel for the respondents conceded this point as such this Court also accept the version of the petitioners that Lower Court''s record was not summoned: In such circumstances, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not justified in exercising his jurisdiction under section 48 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act as for exercising the jurisdiction under section 48 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act it was necessary to examine the records. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 19.9.2014 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation who shall summon the record of Court below and other records as may be required and decide the revision afresh in accordance with law. Since the matter is lingering for a long time, the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall pass a fresh order expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months. The parties are appearing before this Court, they may appear before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 23rd March, 2015.