Zamir and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

By means of this writ petition, the Petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 15-9-2000 passed in Revision No. 12/99-2000 and 29-5-1995, passed by the Respondent No. 1 and 3 respectively contained as Annexure 9 and 1 to the writ petition).

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that aggrieved by the order dated 29-5-1995 passed by the Consolidation Officer Roorkee, the Petitioners preferred three separate appeals under Sections 21(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act bearing Appeal No. 368 Zamir v. Swami Pranawanand and others, 369 Mangta v. Swami Pranawanand and others and 370 Yaseen v. Swami Pranawanand and others, before the Settlement Officer Consolidation Haridwar, camp at Roorkee (for short S.O.C.).

It appears that the S.O.C. after hearing both the parties did not find favor with the Appellants Zamir, Mangta and Yaseen and ultimately dismissed the three appeals on merits by order dated 2-9-1996.

All the three Petitioners filed restoration/recall applications on 3-9-1996 before the S.O.C. stating therein that the appeals were dismissed in default of the Appellants, therefore, in the interest of justice the order dated 2-9-1996 is set aside and the appeals be decided on merits. The Respondent No. 4 herein filed its objection before the S.O.C. asserting therein that the order dated 2-9-1996 had been passed on merits after hearing both the parties and the same is not an ex prate order. The order passed on merits cannot be recalled.

It appears that the S.O.C. by a common order dated 24-4-1998 has decided as many as seven other appeals along with Restoration Applications moved in Appeal Nos. 368, 369 and 370. The S.O.C. has allowed the restoration applications and set aside the earlier order dated 2-9-1996 and further allowed the appeals in favor of the Petitioners and directed that entries be made in the records as per amended Table signed by the S.O.C.

It also appears that aggrieved by the order dated 24-4-1998, the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 4 preferred revisions bearing Revision Nos. 11 of 99-2000 and Revision No. 12/99-2000 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector, Haridwar ( for short the D.D.C.). The D.D.C. by his order dated 15-9-2000, has dismissed the revision preferred by the Petitioners herein thereby maintained the order dated 29-12-1995 passed by the Consolidation Officer and has allowed the revision No. 12/99-2000 preferred by Respondent No. 4 and has also set aside the order dated 24-4-1998.

Aggrieved by the order dated 15-9-2000 passed in Revision No. 12/99-2000, the present writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioners.

Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 has raised a preliminary objection that the earlier order dated 2-9-1996 was not assailed by the Petitioner in this writ petition or in the Revision No. 11/99-2000.

By order dated 24-4-1998, the earlier order dated 2-9-1996 passed by the S.O.C. was set aside and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 29-12-1995 merged in that order.

Moreover, the Respondents having been aggrieved by that order dated 24-4-1998, preferred revision before the D.D.C. and the D.D.C. by his order dated 15-9-2000 has set aside the order dated 24-4-1998 passed by the S.O.C. and has also maintained the order dated 29-12-1995 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Undisputedly, the order passed by the D.D.C. is impugned in the present writ petition. In this view of the matter, there was no occasion for the Petitioners to have assailed the order 2-9-1996 separately in the present writ petition.

It is well settled that the consolidation courts have no power to review or recall its own orders, which are passed on merits. Since the order dated 2-9-1996 was passed by the S.O.C. on merits, therefore, the restoration applications moved by the Petitioners were not maintainable and thus, the S.O.C. committed a manifest error of law by restoring the appeals and again passed the order on merits. In view of the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Shivraji and Ors. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others 1997 (88) R.D. 562 it is not open for the consolidation authorities to review/recall their final orders passed in proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in exercise of inherent powers. Therefore, the D.D.C. has rightly set aside the order dated 24-4-1998, passed by S.O.C. thereby the earlier order dated 2-9-1996 which was passed on merit was recalled.

Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the learned D.D.C. has rightly set aside the earlier order dated 24-4-1998, but at the same time, an opportunity ought to have been given to the Petitioners to assail the earlier order dated 29-5-1995 passed by Consolidation Officer or the order dated 2-9-1996 passed by the S.O.C.

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, liberty is given to the Petitioners to challenge the order dated 29-5-1995 passed by the Consolidation Officer Roorkee as well as the order dated 2-9-1996 passed by the S.O.C. concerned in Appeal Nos. 368, 369 and 370.