Rai Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation — 1967 DIGILAW 175 (ALL)

ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - This petition is directed against the order of the Dy. Director, Consolidation dated 23-1-1967. 2. The statement of proposals was published on 28-11-1962 in the village. Objections were filed and were decided by the Consolidation Officer on 8-2-1963. Later on it appears that the Consolidation Officer passed another order on 14-12-1963 making certain alterations in the allotment. On appeal the Settlement Officer on 29-11-1964 set aside the order dated 14-12-1963 and directed the Consolidation Officer to make a reference to the Dy. Director, Consolidation u/s 48(3) of the Act. Consequently, the Consolidation Officer made a report which was approved by the Settlement Officer and was submitted to the Dy. Director, Consolidation. By the impugned order the Dy. Director, Consolidation has accepted the report and changed the allotment of chaks appropriately. 3. For the Petitioners the only point raised is of jurisdiction. It was urged that the statement u/s 20 of the Act having been published prior to the coming into force of UP Act No. 8 of 1963 on 8-3-1963 the Act as unamended will continue to govern the proceedings in the instant case. For this he has placed relience upon a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Prem Chandra v. Dy Director Consolidation 1966 AWR 291 as well as on a decision of learned single Judge of this Court in Lalji v. Settlement Officer 1966 RD 206. In this case the learned single Judge relying upon the Full Bench decision of Prem Chand held that where proceedings upto the stage of Section 23 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act had been concluded before the amendment the provisions of Section 48(3) will not apply. In this case the effect of Section 47(2) of the amendment Act 8 of 1963 was not considered. The case is distinguishable on the ground that in the present case proceedings u/s 21 were pending and no final orders u/s 23 had been passed. 4. Section 47(1) of the amending Act 8 of 1963 provides that all work in regard to or connected with consolidation operations beyond the stage of publication of the statement of proposals u/s 20 of the principal Act shall, if that statement has already been published, be conducted and concluded in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act and as if this Act had not come into force. Then Sub-section (2) says that all other works to which the provisions of Sub-section (1) do not apply shall be conducted and concluded in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has urged that under the unamended Act there was no provision for reference to the Deputy Director, Consolidation. This jurisdiction was conferred for the first time by the amending Act No. 8 of 1963 by introducing Sub-section (3) to Section 48. Hence this work could not be "the work" referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 47 Proceedings u/s 48(3) would be within the phrase "all other works" mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 47. In that view, the proceedings u/s 48(3) cannot be held to be lacking in jurisdiction. The Full Bench case of Prem Chand dealt with cases of second appeals or revisions. It did at directly deal with the effect of Sub-section (2) of Section 47 or the applicability of Section 48(3) of the Act. It is distinguishable. 5. Let us, however, consider the position assuming that the Unamended Act would apply. The order of the Settlement Officer dated 26-11-1964 would be appelable to the Dy. Director by way of second appeal. The Dy. Director could in the second appeal have gone into the facts and passed appropriate orders. This what he has done by the impugned order. The proceedings before the Dy. Director could be treated as a second appeal. The label of Section 48(3) has made no practical difference. The order should not be quashed merely to satisfy a bare technicality in exercise of the equitable jurisdiction Under Article 226. 6. There is yet another aspect of the case. Section 21(6) of the Act prior to its amendment authorised the Dy. Director to take cognizance of a case where the statement of proposals had been revised or confirmed by the Settlement Officer, either in the course of hearing of an appeal u/s 15 or Section 21 or otherwise and decide it. Under this provision the Dy. Director would have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter and to decide it after it has been decided by the Settlement Officer. In this case the matter came to the Dy. Director after it had been dealt with by the Settlement Officer. The matter having any how come to the notice of the Dy. Under this provision the Dy. Director would have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter and to decide it after it has been decided by the Settlement Officer. In this case the matter came to the Dy. Director after it had been dealt with by the Settlement Officer. The matter having any how come to the notice of the Dy. Director, he could have taken cognizance and decided it u/s 21(6). The mere fact that the authorities below have purported to act u/s 48(3) will not make the proceedings or order without jurisdiction if the impugned order of the Dy. Director could be sustained under this provision of the Act. 7. For all these reasons, this is not a fit case for interference. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.