Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 747 (ALL)

Ikrarkhan v. D. D. C. and Others

2014-03-04

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2014
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 23.1.2013 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12.2.2014 passed in the proceedings arising under Section 9 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act-1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act for recording his name over plot no. 1321/1,1321/8,1321/9 and 1321/19 (total area 6.03 acre). The petitioner took the case before Consolidation Officer that land in dispute was allotted to him by the Land Management Committee on 17.9.1986 and on the basis of the allotment, his name was mutated in the revenue record by the order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 30.8.1987. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the petitioner by order dated 15.7.2002 allowed the objection of the petitioner and directed for recording his name over the land in dispute. 4. State of UP filed a time barred appeal against the aforesaid order before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The appeal filed by State of UP was dismissed in default by order dated 21.6.2010 and thereafter a recall application has been filed. By the order dated 23.1.2013 the recall application was allowed and the order dated 21.6.2010 was recalled and the appeal was restored to its original number and notices have been issued to the opposite parties. 5. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 80/210) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Deputy Director of Consolidation summoned the original record to the allotment proceeding from the office of Tehsildar, Sahjanapur and found that in the original record, relating to allotment proceeding of the land of the village, dated 17.9.1986, the petitioner was not allotted any land by the Land Management Committee. Accordingly, it was held that mutation of the name of the petitioner by the order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 30.8.1987 is a forged entry. The petitioner has not produced the copy of the alleged patta before the Consolidation Officer or before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and before this Court. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has only challenged the validity of the order dated 23.1.2013 in revision and the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not justified to examine the validity of the order of Consolidation Officer dated 15.7.2002. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has only challenged the validity of the order dated 23.1.2013 in revision and the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not justified to examine the validity of the order of Consolidation Officer dated 15.7.2002. He has only jurisdiction to decide the validity of the order dated 23.1.2013 and at the most if he was not satisfied, he could have dismissed the revision of the petitioner leaving it open for the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to decide the appeal filed by State of UP on merit. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally usurp the jurisdiction of Settlement Officer, Consolidation and in spite of the fact that the appeal was not decided on merit, he himself decided the case on merit. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. 8. Section 48 (1) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act provides the provision for revision is quoted below:- 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 purposes 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. Under Section 48(1) of the Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction to call for and examine the record of any case of proceeding taken by any subordinate authority and can decide the correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed by the subordinate authority. 9. Such revision was filed in the matter arising out of the order of Consolidation Officer dated 15.7.2002 and the entire record was summoned by Deputy Director of Consolidation. When he has jurisdiction to examine the legality and propriety of the order passed by Consolidation Officer dated 15.7.2002. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the patta was not granted to the petitioner and on the basis of a forged entry of the alleged order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 30.8.1987, the petitioner is deriving his title over the land in dispute. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the patta was not granted to the petitioner and on the basis of a forged entry of the alleged order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 30.8.1987, the petitioner is deriving his title over the land in dispute. The findings of fact recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation could not be challenged by the petitioner before this Court also. 10. So far as the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given opportunity to adduce the evidence, is concerned. The objection was filed by the petitioner himself and he has been given opportunity before the Consolidation Officer. The appeal as well as revision were arising out of the case filed by the petitioner himself, as such, the allegation that opportunity to adduce evidence was not given, is not liable to be accepted. 11. Since the claim of the petitioner is found to be based upon a forged entry in the revenue record, the patta was not found to be in existence, as such, the petitioner has no title over the land in dispute. 12. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed. _______________