Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1967 DIGILAW 360 (ALL)

Ram Singh v. Neki Ram

1967-09-25

S.D.KHARE

body1967
ORDER S.D. Khare, J. - This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the prayer is that the order dated 11-6-1963 (Annexure C) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut, be quashed by means of a writ in the nature of certiorari. 2. The facts leading to this writ petition, briefly stated, are that consolidation proceedings started in village Chhapraula in district Meerut and the statement of valuation of plots was prepared sometime in the year 1962. The valuation of plot No. 2863 which belonged to opposite party No. 1 was reduced from 9 annas to 7 annas. The opposite party No. 1 did not file any objection at that stage. In the statement of proposals u/s 20 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act plot No. 2863 was allotted to the Petitioner. Neki Ram (opposite party No. 1) filed an objection that the valuation of his plot had been lowered without any justification, with the result that he had been allotted land of less area than he originally possessed prior to the consolidation and that either the valuation of his plot No. 2863 be increased or the same be allotted to his chak. Both the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, rejected his contentions mainly on the ground that the allotment made was fair and no objection had been raised by him at the time the valuations were fixed. The opposite party No. 1 filed a revision application, and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, by his order dated 11-6-1963, accepted his prayer that plot No. 2863 be included in his chak on the ground that as a result of the consolidation the area which had been allotted to opposite party No. 1 had become less while the area which had been allotted to the Petitioner had increased. The result of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was that plot No. 2863, which had been allotted to the Petitioner, was taken away from him and given to opposite party No. 1 to whom it originally belonged. 3. The result of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was that plot No. 2863, which had been allotted to the Petitioner, was taken away from him and given to opposite party No. 1 to whom it originally belonged. 3. The contention of the Petitioner is that the effect of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was that the plea of the opposite party that plot No. 2863 had not been properly valued had been accepted and that in any case the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order because the remedy of opposite party No. 2 lay by way of a second appeal provided under the unamended Act and not by means of a revision u/s 48 of the Amended Act. 4. The petition is opposed. 5. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and in my opinion there is no force in any of the contentions raised by him. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while disposing of the revision application did not increase the valuation of plot No. 2863. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the result of the order of the Deputy Director had been that the contention regarding the exchange value to be fixed of plot No. 2863 had been accepted. The Deputy Director had given plot No. 2863 to opposite party No. 1 for two reasons. In the first place it had originally belonged to him, and, in the second place, the area in his chak had become less as a result of the consolidation proceedings while the area of land which had been allotted to the Petitioner had increased. In case the Deputy Director of Consolidation had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order it will be difficult for the Petitioner to contend that the order is unjust or unfair. 6. The next point for consideration is whether in the circumstances of the case the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, as amended by Act No. 8 of 1963, shall apply so far as appeals and revisions are concerned. 6. The next point for consideration is whether in the circumstances of the case the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, as amended by Act No. 8 of 1963, shall apply so far as appeals and revisions are concerned. The relevant portion of Section 47 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act (Act No. 8 of 1963) reads as follows: In units notified u/s 4 of the Principal Act, prior to the date on which this Act comes into force, hereinafter referred to as the said date, all work in regard to or connected with the consolidation operations-- (i) beyond the stage of publication of the statement of proposals u/s 20 of the Principal Act, where, on or before the said date, that statement had already been published; and (ii) upto and inclusive of the stage of confirmation of the statement of principles u/s 18 of the Principal Act, where, on or before the said date, notices u/s 9 of the Principal Act had already issued; shall be conducted and concluded in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act, as if this Act had not come into force: Provided that, as respects second appeals and revisions, which lay under the provisions of the Principal Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by this Act but had not been instituted before the said date, the Principal Act, as amended by this Act, shall apply and be deemed always to have applied as if this Act had been in force on all the material dates. 7. In the present case it is clear that both the notification u/s 4 and the statement of proposals u/s 20 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act had been published before 8-3-1963, the date on which the UP Act No. 8 of 1963 came into force. Therefore except as respects second appeals and revisions the proceedings beyond the stage of publication of the statement of proposals u/s 20 had to be conducted and concluded in accordance with the unamended Act. 8. We have now to consider what is the effect of the Proviso to Section 47 on second appeals and revisions so far as the present case is concerned. The first appeal was decided by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, on 27-2-1963, that is, about a week prior to the coming into force of UP Act No. 8 of 1963. 8. We have now to consider what is the effect of the Proviso to Section 47 on second appeals and revisions so far as the present case is concerned. The first appeal was decided by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, on 27-2-1963, that is, about a week prior to the coming into force of UP Act No. 8 of 1963. Under the unamended Act a second appeal could be preferred within 21 days (vide Section 21(5) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act) from the date of the first appellate court's order. In other words it could be filed till 20-3-1963. The amendments introduced by UP Act No. 8 of 1963 came into force from 8-3-1963. In case the opposite party intended to file a second appeal against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, dated 27-2-1963, on or after 8-3-1963, he could not do so because under the amended Act Sub-section (5) of Section 21 stood deleted and according to the Proviso to Section 47 of the UP Act No. 8 of 1963 only the amended Act applied as respects second appeals and revisions. The result was that after 8-3-1963, only a revision application could be filed against the order dated 27-2--1963, passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. 9. The powers of Director of Consolidation u/s 48 of the amended Act are not analogous to Section 115 of the CPC for the simple reason that the Director of Consolidation can do much more. He may amend the order passed by any subordinate authority if he is not satisfied with it as to its correctness, legality or propriety. 10. It is, therefore, difficult to say that no revision application lay to the Deputy Director of Consolidation or that he had exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. 11. There is no force in this writ petition and it is dismissed with costs.