Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1659 (ALL)

RAJARAM v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

2002-11-13

R.H.ZAIDI

body2002
R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the case. ( 2 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner (since deceased) prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30. 7. 1988 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur in the proceedings under Section 20/21 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short "the act" ). ( 3 ) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to present petition, in brief, are that respondent Nos, 2 to 6 who were chak-holders of Chak Nos. 38, 39 and 40, filed objections before the consolidation Officer on receipt of provisional consolidation scheme regarding valuation of the land allotted to them in their chaks. It was claimed that the valuation of the land allotted to them was more than as prescribed under the rules. Therefore, they have prayed that the valuation of the land allotted to them should be reduced. The objection filed by the contesting respondents was opposed by the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer after due notice and in presence of the parties made the local inspection of the land in dispute and prepared an inspection note. Thereafter, hearing the parties dismissed the objection filed by the respondents by his judgment and order dated 27. 2. 1986, holding that the proper valuation was assigned to the disputed plots. Challenging the validity of the said order passed by the Consolidation Officer, three appeals were filed by the respondents. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation after perusing the material on record and after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the valuation of the land in dispute was Just and proper and that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was not to be interfered with. Having recorded the said findings, the appeals were dismissed by his judgment and order dated 19. 1. 1987 by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Respondents thereafter preferred three revisions under Section 48 of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the parties and after perusing the material on record, came to the conclusion that looking from the point of view of the quality and the situation of the land, the valuation of some of the plots in question was not proper. Respondents thereafter preferred three revisions under Section 48 of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the parties and after perusing the material on record, came to the conclusion that looking from the point of view of the quality and the situation of the land, the valuation of some of the plots in question was not proper. He has, therefore, revalued some of the plots in accordance with law and allowed the revision in part by his judgment and order dated 30. 7. 1988, hence the present petition. ( 4 ) ON this petition, notices were issued to the contesting respondents who have filed counter-affidavit denying the facts stated in the writ petition, in reply of which a rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed denying the facts stated in the counter-affidavit and reasserting the facts stated in the writ petition. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the contesting respondents did not file objection under Section 9 of the Act, therefore, they had no right to file objection under section 20/21 of the Act. It was also urged that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities below and that the impugned order was wholly arbitrary and illegal. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents supported the validity of the impugned order. It was urged that after publication of provisional consolidation scheme in the area, the contesting respondents could file objection against the same including an objection regarding valuation of the land as Section 20 of the Act allows a tenure-holder to file an objection against anything contained in the statement published, i. e. , C. H. Form No. 23, including the valuation of the plots also. The objection was filed in accordance with law and the deputy Director of Consolidation was right in holding that some of the plots in dispute were not properly valued and rightly passed the impugned order. According to him, the writ petition was concluded by findings of fact and was liable to be dismissed. ( 7 ) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, the objections and the appeals filed by the contesting respondents were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer and by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. According to him, the writ petition was concluded by findings of fact and was liable to be dismissed. ( 7 ) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, the objections and the appeals filed by the contesting respondents were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer and by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has entertained the revision under Section 48 of the Act. Section 48 of the Act provides as under : "48. Revision and reference.-- (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 other than an interlocutory order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. (2) Powers under Sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under Sub-section (3 ). (3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the director of Consolidation for action under Sub-section (1 ). Explanation.-- (1) For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolldators and Consolidation lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation. Explanation.-- (2) For the purposes of this section the expression "interlocutory order" in relation to a case or proceeding, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding. " ( 9 ) THE Apex Court in the decision of Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad, 2001 (1) AWC 344 (SC) ; 2001 RD 79 and this Court relying upon the said decision, in number of cases took the view that the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of power under Section 48 of the Act could not act as the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. He has got no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities below unless they were found to be incorrect, illegal or improper. The aforesaid section has been amended by the Uttar Pradesh consolidation of Holdings (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 (U. P. Ordinance No. 12 of 2002 ). Section 2 of the said Ordinance provides as under ; "2. Insertion in Section 48 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1954.--In Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, after Explanation (2) the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely "explanation.-- (3) The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any findings, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence. " ( 10 ) THE aforesaid amendment came into force with effect from 10. 11. 1980. The impugned order was passed in the year 1988, therefore, Section 48, as amended by the aforesaid Ordinance, was applicable in the present case. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, did not commit any error of law or Jurisdiction in reappreclating the evidence on the record and recording the findings and in holding that the valuation of the said plot was not correctly determined and re-determtned the valuation of the some of the plots after taking into consideration the relevant factors, i. e. , productivity, location, quality of land, etc. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, to the contrary, therefore, cannot be accepted. The order passed by respondent no. 1 cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal in view of the amended provisions of Section 48 of the Act, referred to above. It is also well-settled in law that on receipt of the provisional consolidation scheme, the tenure-holders who were aggrieved by the same, could file objection, including an objection regarding valuation of the land allotted to them. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions in Ram Sewak v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1982 RD 35 (HC) and Udaipal Singh v. Collector, Mathura, 1987 (1) AWC 157 : 1986 RD 448 (HC ). Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions in Ram Sewak v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1982 RD 35 (HC) and Udaipal Singh v. Collector, Mathura, 1987 (1) AWC 157 : 1986 RD 448 (HC ). In the aforesaid cases, this Court has taken the view that objection regarding valuation of land can also be raised under Section 20 of the Act if the tenure holder feels aggrieved by the provisional consolidation scheme (C. H. Form No. 23 ). In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. ( 11 ) THE writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. .