Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 531 (UTT)

JEET LAL @ JEETA MAL v. GRAM SABHA, ETHAL, BUJURG

2009-10-27

ALOK SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Since all the writ petitions are filed against the same judgment dated 29.08.2009 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar and the controversy involved in all the writ petitions is same, consequently, with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners, all the writ petitions are being taken together for hearing and decided by this judgment. 3. Present writ petitions are filed against the impugned order passed by DDC dated 29.08.2009 by which learned Revisional Court – Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar, remanded the matter to the consolidation officer with the direction that Consolidation Officer shall decide the matter within three months after giving opportunity to lead fresh evidence. While passing the impugned order, learned Reivisonal Court has also observed that Trial Court’s file is not available. It is also fairly admitted by Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that Shanti Sharif had died issueless. It is also contended by Mr. Sudhir Kumar that date of death of Smt. Shanti Sharif is not known. He has further stated that he is not in a position to tell the Court what is the actual date of death of Smt. Shanti Sharif, if it is not so, then remand of the case seems to be justified. 4. The case taken by the Gaon Sabha that Smt. Shanti Sharif died issueless and as per provisions of 189 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 on the death of Bhoomidhar issueless the land stand vested in the Gaon Sabha. Further the case of the Gaon Sabha is that if after the death of Smt. Shanti Sharif land stood vested in the Gaon Sabha then there is no question of granting declaration in favour of the petitioner declared her as Bhumidhar. No claim of adverse possession can be entertained over the land belonging to State/Gaon Sabha under the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 5. In view of the fact especially that date of death of Smt. Shanti Sharif is not known and file of the Trial Court is not traceable, it would be justified and proper to direct the Consolidation Officer to proceed de novo with the case after taking fresh evidence from the petitioner as well as Gaon Sabha. 6. 5. In view of the fact especially that date of death of Smt. Shanti Sharif is not known and file of the Trial Court is not traceable, it would be justified and proper to direct the Consolidation Officer to proceed de novo with the case after taking fresh evidence from the petitioner as well as Gaon Sabha. 6. While deciding the case, the Consolidation Officer shall also give his finding on the question as to whether Mrs. Shanti Sharif died issueless, if so, when and consequent thereon, if land vested in the Gaon Sabha, petitioners have any right on the basis of adverse possession over the land. 7. Mr. Sudhir Kumar argued that appeal as well as revision filed by Gaon Sabha through DGC were not maintainable as well as impugned order must be set aside. 8. Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 reads 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 interlocutory order] passed by such authority in the case of proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case 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).” 9. From perusal of the section 48 of the Act 1953 it can safely be held that Revisional court for the satisfaction of himself irrespective of the fact that revision is maintainable or not can call for record of the court below and decide the case. 10. This is exactly held in the present case where Deputy Director of Consolidation seems to have exercised his jurisdiction in the revision filed by Gaon Sabha through DGC. 10. This is exactly held in the present case where Deputy Director of Consolidation seems to have exercised his jurisdiction in the revision filed by Gaon Sabha through DGC. Otherwise also he can call the record of the case, consequently, impugned order is not liable to be quashed at this stage because it seems to be justified order. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, writ petitions are dismissed summarily. No order as to costs.