Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 288 (UTT)

Mohd. Farooq v. Deputy Director of Consolidation

2013-05-28

B.S.VERMA

body2013
Judgment B.S. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to set aside the order dated 05.06.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 in Revision No. 52/06 of 1999-2000, Jasveer Singh & others Vs Narvel Rajendra Prakash. 2. Brief facts of the case, according to the petitioners, are that Settlement Officer Consolidation approved the reference on 20.09.1996. Mr. Ram Pal moved an application before the Settlement Officer Consolidation with a prayer to review the order dated 20.09.1996. The review application was partly allowed vide order dated 20.11.1997 whereby the Settlement Officer Consolidation accepted the request of Rampal by giving him plot No. 280. The order dated 20.09.1996 and 20.11.1997 were assailed by filing a revision before the Deputy Director Consolidation and the same was allowed only on one ground that order of Settlement Officer Consolidation is without jurisdiction, since he has no power to accept the reference under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act (in short ‘Consolidation Act’). Therefore, aggrieved by the said order, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only dispute is to be decided by this Court in the present writ petition is whether the Deputy Director Consolidation or the Settlement Officer Consolidation has power to accept the reference under Section 48(3) of the Consolidation Act. In order to resolve the sole controversy, it is necessary to mention the provision of Section 48(3) of the Consolidation Act, the same is quoted below:- “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 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) ….. (2) ….. (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, Consolidator or 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.” 4. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation passed in reference proceeding on the ground that the Settlement Officer Consolidation is not competent to accept the reference made by the Consolidation Officer. Sub Section (3) of Section 48 of the Consolidation Act gives power only to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the reference. The reference cannot be heard and decided by the subordinate authority i.e. Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Therefore, I find no error in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in holding that Settlement Officer Consolidation has no power to accept the reference and rightly allowed the revision. 5. In view of the discussion made in forgoing paragraphs, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the same is dismissed. 6. Accordingly, stay order dated 02.07.2002 is vacated. 7. However, in case, fresh reference is made, Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the same in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.