Vikrmajeet Singh vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, and another

S.K. Singh, J.—Heard Sri Srivastava, learned Advocate in support of this writ petition and Sri Misra, learned Advocate who appears for the respondent.

Challenge is to the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26.5.1995 by which in a reference proceeding certain changes in the chak of the parties has been made.

For disposal of the claim of parties, notice of facts in brief will suffice.

In the proceedings under section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act, an appeal was filed by the petitioner which was allowed by the appellate authority by its judgment dated 12.8.1993 which the respondent side claims to be exparte. Be as it may, revision was filed which was dismissed. Then an application for reference was moved by the respondent before the Deputy Director of Consolidation making complaint about some wrong/incorrect changes in the chak upon which report was called upon and then order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 26.5.1995 by which chak has been altered. This order is under challenge before this Court.

Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as revision filed by respondent in allotment of chak proceeding was dismissed and therefore whatever allotment was made that became final and thus by reference proceeding that cannot be varied. Submission is that exercise by the Deputy Director of Consolidation besides being illegal is totally without jurisdiction. Lastly, it is submitted that order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is totally non speaking and just by taking in mind the convenience of the respondent reference was allowed/which on the facts cannot be said to be justified. Submission is that reference proceeding cannot be said to be the substitute of revision under section 48(1) of U.P.C.H. Act.

In response to the aforesaid, Sri Misra, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that although revison was dismissed but respondent was entitled to file an application for reference before the Deputy Director of Consolidation if wrong placement was done and as that is to advance cause of justice, no interference is required.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is to decide the claim of parties.

Admittedly order of appellate authority in the allotment of chak proceeding by which chak of parties were adjusted became final as revision was dismissed. By the order of appellate authority chak of the respondent was adjusted and demand of the petitioner was accepted by assigning reason. Order of appellate authority might be right or wrong, revision filed against that order was dismissed. Admittedly so far record goes, against the appellate order revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the respondent which was dismissed on 15.6.1994 and that order became final.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that whatever adjustment/allotment was made by the appellate authority that having become final that could not have been varied by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the reference proceeding. It has been repeatedly said by this Court that reference proceedings are not the substitute of revision under section 48(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. The order passed by the appellate authority/revisional Court, exercising appellate power/reyisional power are not to be varied under section 48(3) of U P.C.H. Act under the garb of reference proceeding. This being the situation application making complaint about some wrong in the adjustment of chak was totally misconceived and that cannot be corrected by means of reference proceeding. This Court is convinced that exercise by revisional Court is totally without jurisdiction and therefore, that cannot be approved by this Court. Thus on the admitted fact, in view of the analysis as made, order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26.5.1995 will have to go.

Accordingly this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order 26.5.1995 is hereby quashed.