Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 771 (PAT)

Dhruw Dayal Mahto v. State Of Bihar

2001-08-22

S.K.KATRIAR

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Govt. counsel, and learned counsel for respondent no.5. Respondent nos.1 to 4 are the official respondents who are represented by learned Govt. counsel, and respondent nos. 5 to 8 are the private respondents to whome notices have been directed to be issued by order dated 28.3.2000. Notices have been served on them but respondent no.5 alone has entered appearance. 2. The petitioner makes a grievance before this Court that the appellate order dated 8.7.1997 (annexure-2), has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bhojpur, Arrah, in appeal case no. 41/88-89, and the revisional order dated 20.8.99 (annexure-3), in revision case no. 259/97 has also been passed by a functionary of the same rank, namely, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rohtas, headquarters Patna. In his submission, this is impermissible in law. He has placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ramotar Yadav V/s. Ajaz Haider, 2001 (1) PLJR page 266, as well as an unreported judgment dated 2.5.2001, passed in CWJC No. 495/2001. In that view of the matter, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid revisional order marked as annexure-3 should be set aside and the matter should be remitted back to the Director of Consolidation to dispose of the same in accordance with law. 3. The learned Govt. counsel and learned counsel for respondent no.5 have made their own submissions in opposition. 4. Having considered the rival submission, I am of the view that this writ petition ought to be allowed. 3. The learned Govt. counsel and learned counsel for respondent no.5 have made their own submissions in opposition. 4. Having considered the rival submission, I am of the view that this writ petition ought to be allowed. Sub-section 4 of section 2 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) defines Director of Consolidation and reads as follows: (4) "Director of Consolidation" means the officer appointed as such by the State Government to exercise the powers and perform the duties of Director of Consolidation under this Act or the rules made thereunder and shall include an Additional Director of Consolidation and Joint Director of Consolidation; (4a) "Deputy Director of Consolidation" means an officer not below the rank of Additional District Collector appointed as such by the State Government to exercise such powers and perform such duties of the Director of Consolidation as may be delegated to him by the State Government and shall include an Assistant Director of Consolidation; (4b) "Assistant Director of Consolidation" means an officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector appointed as such by the State Government to exercise the powers and perform the duties of an Assistant Director of Consolidation under this Act or the rules made thereunder. Section 35 of the Act provides for revision and reference which reads as follows: 35. "Revision and reference.The Director of Consolidation may of his own motion or on the application of any party or on reference being made by any subordinate authority, call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by such authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceeding; 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." It is thus manifest on a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions that the power can be exercised by the Director of Consolidation or Additional Director of Consolidation or a Joint Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot in view of this provision exercise the power of revision or reference under section 35 of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot in view of this provision exercise the power of revision or reference under section 35 of the Act. In that view of the matter, reliance placed by the petitioner on the aforesaid two judgments is apposite and are to the same as I have held hereinabove. 5 There is one more aspect of the matter. Law is well settled that appeal or revision lies before a higher authority, and review lies before the same authority whose judgment is sought to be reviewed. This is advisedly so for the reason that power of review is very narrow and, therefore, lies before the same authority. The appeal and revision are wider in scope and, therefore, lie before a superior authority. 6. The Deputy Director of Consolidation who passed the revisional order dated 20.8.99 (annexure-3) has acted illegally and in gross violation of the statutory provision which is impermissible in law. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.8.99 (annexure-3), passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rohtas, in Revision Case No. 25/97, is hereby set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the Director of Consolidation who will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. The Director of Consolidation should ensure that the provisions of law are properiy administered. He should ensure that such mistakes do not occur in future. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to him.