Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 552 (UTT)

BRIJ PAL v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

2009-11-05

ALOK SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents. 2. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 22.03.2005 whereby delay in filing the revision was condoned by the Revisional Court, petitioners have preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Main ground challenging the impugned order is that delay of 6 years in filing the revision should have not been condoned. 4. State Government/revisionist contended before Deputy Director of consolidation that Consolidation Officer had increased area of the chaks illegally in the records by way of impugned judgment. On the basis of the increased area land holders are demanding demarcation and increased area on the spot. It was further stated no extra land is available on the spot to be given to the petitioners herein. It was reported to the State Government and on the report of the Halka Lekhpal dated 24.01.2004, State Government came to know about the illegality committed by the Consolidated Officer and decided to file revision, hence, delay in filing the revision must be condoned. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation having heard both the parties pleased to condone the delay in filing the revision by way of impugned judgment. 5. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner states that without approaching Appellate Court straight way revision was not maintainable, hence, delay in filing the revision should not be condoned. He further stated that before condoning the delay in filing the Revision, the Court must see as to whether revision is maintainable without exhausting remedy of appeal? In support of his argument he placed reliance in the case of Santosh Kumar reported in 1988 RD page 578. 6. I have carefully perused the judgment of learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court (Supra). Allahabad High Court has held that without approaching the Appellate Court under section 11 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Revision should not be filed and in the events of filing of Revision, Revisional Court should direct the parties to approach the Appellate Court first. 7. Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 reads as under: “48. 7. Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings 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 exercise 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).” 8. From perusal of Section 48 of the Act it can be held that Deputy Director of Consolidation has power to call the record of any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularities of the proceedings or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by any subordinate authority. With respect to the learned Single Judge of Allahabad, I hold that revisional power can be invoked by Deputy Director of Consolidation even suo moto or otherwise for the purpose of satisfying himself about the legality, correctness and propriety of any other without exhausting the appellate remedy before approaching the Revisional Court. I further hold that revision ordinarily should not be admitted without exhausting the appellate remedy unless and until Deputy Director of Consolidation finds some glaring irregularity, illegality in the order passed by the Subordinate Authority and records its prima facie satisfaction before admitting the Revision. 9. In the present case Halka Lekhpal reported to the State Government that Consolidation Officer, Roorkee illegally increased areas of the chaks while no extra land is available on the spot to be given in the possession of land holders. This seems to be glaring illegality and manifest error of law committed by Consolidation Officer which requires examination by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, hence, revision is maintainable. 10. This seems to be glaring illegality and manifest error of law committed by Consolidation Officer which requires examination by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, hence, revision is maintainable. 10. Powers under Article 227 should not be pressed in service when Subordinate Court or Tribunal exercised its direction for the purpose of hearing the case on merit. Since by way of impugned order Deputy Director of Consolidation condoned the delay hence, it would not be appropriate for this Court to reverse the discretion exercised by Deputy Director of Consolidation. 11. In view of the observations made herein above impugned order does not warrant any interference. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.