Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 346 (ALL)

Bhola Nath v. D. D. C.

2018-02-07

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 8. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.7.2003 passed by respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'). 3. It transpires from the record that against the order of allotment dated 31.10.2000 passed by Consolidation Officer, Sahson, Allahabad, respondent Nos. 2 to 8 filed an Appeal under Section 21(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), which were registered as Appeal Nos. 643, 644 and 645 before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.'). In the aforesaid appeals, the S.O.C. vide his judgment and order dated 31.7.2001 modified the order dated 31.10.2000 passed by Consolidation Officer, Allahabad. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.7.2001 passed by S.O.C., respondent Nos. 2 to 8 filed Revisions under Section 48 of the Act, 1953, which were registered as Revision Nos. 1476 of 1940, 1472 of 1936, 1477 of 1941 and 1654 before D.D.C., who vide his judgment and order dated 31.12.2001 dismissed the aforesaid revisions. Subsequently, a restoration application was filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 8 stating that order dated 31.12.2001 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the said respondents/applicants and no notice or summons were issued to the aforesaid respondents in the revisions filed by them. On the basis of the aforesaid averment, it was prayed by respondent Nos. 2 to 8 that the order dated 31.12.2001 may be recalled and fresh orders may be passed by D.D.C. on the above mentioned revisions after hearing the applicants. i.e. respondent Nos. 2 to 8. The D.D.C. vide his order dated 21.7.2003 allowed the said application filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 8 and passed fresh orders allowing Revision Nos. 1476 of 1940, 1472 of 1936, 1477 of 1941 and 1654 instituted by respondent Nos. 2 to 8. 5. It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that order dated 21.7.2003 passed by D.D.C. is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said order, is, in effect, review of his previous order dated 31.12.2001, a power which respondent No. 1 does not have under Section 48 of the Act, 1953. 2 to 8. 5. It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that order dated 21.7.2003 passed by D.D.C. is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said order, is, in effect, review of his previous order dated 31.12.2001, a power which respondent No. 1 does not have under Section 48 of the Act, 1953. In support of his contention counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Shivraji v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Allahabad 1997 (88) RD 562. 6. In rebuttal, counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 8 has argued that D.D.C. has rightly allowed the revisions and recalled his previous order dated 31.12.2001 as the order dated 31.12.2001 was an ex-parte order and was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to respondent Nos. 2 to 8. 7. I have perused the record and considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 8. A perusal of impugned order dated 21.7.2003 shows that in the aforesaid order, D.D.C. has not recorded any finding as to whether his previous order dated 31.12.2001 was an ex-parte order and whether the facts stated by respondent Nos. 2 to 8 in their restoration application praying for recalling of the order dated 31.12.2001 to the effect that they were not issued any notice or summon in the revisions filed by them, was correct or not. The aforesaid finding was necessary to be recorded by D.D.C., especially in view of the averments made by respondent Nos. 2 to 8 in their application that they were not issued any notice or summon in revisions, which were filed by them. Under the law and in the procedure followed by Consolidation Courts, no notice or summon was required to be issued to the revisionists/respondent Nos. 2 to 8 as the revisions were filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 themselves and they were supposed to know the dates fixed in the cases filed by them. The said finding was also necessary to be recorded by D.D.C. in view of the recital made by D.D.C. in his previous order dated 31.12.2001 that counsel for the parties were heard. In absence of any finding as aforesaid, the D.D.C. could not have proceeded to decide the revisions filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 8 and recall his previous order dated 31.12.2001 and pass fresh orders. In absence of any finding as aforesaid, the D.D.C. could not have proceeded to decide the revisions filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 8 and recall his previous order dated 31.12.2001 and pass fresh orders. The order dated 21.7.2003 passed by D.D.C. amounts to a review of his previous order dated 31.12.2001 and is thus without jurisdiction in view of the law laid down in case of Shivraji (Supra). 9. For the aforesaid reasons, order dated 21.7.2003 passed by respondent No. 1 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 21.7.2003 passed by respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad is hereby set aside.