Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1966 DIGILAW 94 (ALL)

Bhagwan Bux Singh v. Deputy Director

1966-02-23

B.N.NIGAM

body1966
JUDGMENT B. N. Nigam, J. - Bhagwan Bux Singh has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 20th March, 1964 passed by opposite party No. 1 the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 2. The petitioner states that he was Bhumidhar of holding No. 25 in village Dadoopur, Pargana Bijnor, Tehsil and District Lucknow. lie preferred an objection as regards the validation of his plots. The objection was dismissed. He preferred an appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). This was also dismissed. Then he preferred a revision. This was dismissed as being not maintainable. This order vas passed on 15th October, 1963. When the Chaks were formed the petitioner again filed an objection against the formation of the Chaks. The objection was dismissed but an appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Against that order, opposite party No. 3 Mahipat Singh preferred a revision which has been allowed by the impugned order copy of which is Annexure No. 6. 3. In the writ petition, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Only one contention has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have heard a revision even though powers under Sec. 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act had been conferred on that officer. The argument that the powers under Sec. 44 (ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act could be conferred not on any Deputy Director of Consolidation but some o.her officer or authority has already been rejected by a Full Bench in Writ Petition No. 385 of 1963. That argument need not detain me. 4. The argument pressed before me with considerable force is that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is not subordinate to the Deputy Director of Consolidation and, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have heard a revision under Sec. 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against an order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). 4. The argument pressed before me with considerable force is that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is not subordinate to the Deputy Director of Consolidation and, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have heard a revision under Sec. 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against an order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Sec. 48 as amended by U.P. Act VIII of 1963 reads: "48(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 passed by such authority in the case or proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. (2)....................... (3) ....................." This sub-section clearly authorises the Director of Consolidation to hear a revision or reference only in respect of a case decided or proceeding taken by "any subordinate authority." 5. The question is who is this "subordinate authority" and whether the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is an authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation. There is no doubt that in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before its amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963 there was a hierarchy of tribunals. Appeals against the order of the Consolidation Officer lay to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Second appeals against the appellate orders of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) lay to the Deputy Director of Consolidation and a revision lay to the Director of Consolidation under Sec. 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before its amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963. Now, the learned counsel argues that certain provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, particularly Sec. 9-A (3), Sec. 11(1) and Sec. 23 suggest that the orders of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) shall be final except as provided by this Act. That, in my opinion, creates no difficulty. If Sec. 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act authorises a Director of Consolidation to hear revisions against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) then that would be the provision envisaged under Secs. 9-A (3), 11(1) and 23 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. That, in my opinion, creates no difficulty. If Sec. 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act authorises a Director of Consolidation to hear revisions against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) then that would be the provision envisaged under Secs. 9-A (3), 11(1) and 23 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. If the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is not a subordinate authority then no revision would be eneritainable against his order in terms of Sec. 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the orders referred to by the learned counsel would be final as there would be no her provision affecting the finality of these orders in any other part of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act unless the order can be challenged under the provisions of Sec. 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of foldings Act as is suggested by the learned counsel. In any case, that "does not solve my problem. The question before me is whether the settlement Officer (Consolidation) s an authority subordinate to the director of Consolidation or not. As have indicated, there is no specific revision in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act now clearly laying down the hierarchy of tribunals. As I have also indicated before its amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963 the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act did provide for a second appeal against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to the Deputy Director of Consolidation and a revision against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to the Director of Consolidation. Even now the learned counsel does not doubt that the Consolidation Officer is an authority subordinate to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). It, therefore, follows that before the amendments introduced by U.P. Act VIII of 1963 there could be no manner of doubt as to the subordination of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to the Deputy Director of Consolidation who in his turn was subordinate to the Director of Consolidation. I do not find any good reason for holding that by introducing the amendments brought in by U.P. Act VIII of 1963 the legislature had any intention of disturbing the order of seniority or the hierarchy of tribunals. 6. In Writ Petition No. 385 of 1963 though the question of the subordination of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was not expressly before the Full Bench, Justice Sahgal appears to have considered the question. 6. In Writ Petition No. 385 of 1963 though the question of the subordination of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was not expressly before the Full Bench, Justice Sahgal appears to have considered the question. He states: "It is only under the Rules that he too can be said to be an authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation. The Rules, therefore, have to be looked into .... If the Rules are not looked into, then Sec. 48 in so far as it relates even to a Settlement Officer will have no meaning. Thus we cannot confine ourselves only to the Act for ascertaining the meaning of the word subordinate authority with respect to Sec. 48 of the amended Act and looking to the Rules, a Deputy Director of Consolidation is certainly a subordinate authority to the Director of Consolidation." 7. I am in respectful agreement with the views and I am of opinion that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is an authority subordinate to the Direct or of Consolidation. 8. The mere fact that certain Settlement Officers (Consolidation) have also been conferred the power of the Director of Consolidation will not affect decision in this matter, for the exercise of the two powers must be kept distinct. The power of revision is exercised by virtue of the power of the Director of Consolidation conferred on an officer or authority (even if he be a Settlement Officer (Consolidation)). The power of a Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is exercised because of the appointment as such. Thus even if a Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is invested with the powers of the Director of Consolidation, he may hear revisions against the orders of other Settlement Officers (Consolidation). 9. No other point has been pressed before me. I, therefore, see no force in this writ petition and dismiss it. There will be no order as to costs.