Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1041 (ALL)

Jodharam v. Deputy Director of Consolidation

2022-07-07

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.-Heard Sri Ram Chandra Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 5 and Sri Raj Kamal Singh holding brief of Sri Akhilendra Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 114 and respondent No. 4 is chak holder No. 54. Original holdings of petitioner are plot Nos. 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 1999, 200, 201, 202 total area 0.276 hectare and the petitioner was proposed chak by Asstt. Consolidation Officer on plot Nos. 195, 197, 201, 202 total area 0.257 hectare which was according to the Act and Rules framed for allotment of chak. Against the proposal of Asstt. Consolidation Officer, respondent No. 4 filed belated chak objection which was decided in her favour and chak of the petitioner was disturbed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the chak which was allotted to the petitioner was on the bank of the river and was also 'uran', accordingly, petitioner challenged the order of Consolidation Officer dated 23.6.2021 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act with the prayer to set aside the order dated 23.6.2021 and stage of Asstt. Consolidation Officer be maintained, in appeal prayer for condonation of delay was also made, accordingly, Settlement Officer Consolidation after condoning the delay in filing appeal, allowed the appeal on merit setting aside the order dated 23.6.2021 and the stage of Asstt. Consolidation Officer was maintained. Against the Appellate order dated 22.10.2021, Revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by respondent No. 4 and the Revisional Court by impugned order dated 31.3.2022 allowed the revision filed by respondent No. 4 by giving reason that demand of respondent No. 4 appears to be correct, hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proposal made in favour of petitioner by Asstt. Consolidation Officer was on his original holding but the same was illegally set aside by Consolidation Officer while deciding the objection, the order of Consolidation Officer was rightly set aside in appeal and the stage of Asstt. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proposal made in favour of petitioner by Asstt. Consolidation Officer was on his original holding but the same was illegally set aside by Consolidation Officer while deciding the objection, the order of Consolidation Officer was rightly set aside in appeal and the stage of Asstt. Consolidation Officer was maintained but the revisional Court finally allowed the revision filed by the respondent No. 4 by a cryptic order saying only that demand of respondent No. 4 appears to be correct but there is no consideration of the petitioner's case, no reason has been assigned in revisional order and there is no proper compliance of Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by revisional Court, hence, impugned revisional order be set aside and order of appellate court dated 22.10.2021 be restored. 4. For the appreciations of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, perusal of Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will be necessary. 5. Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act reads as follows : ''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 the case or p0roceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or 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 sub-ordinate 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 and 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. [Explanation (3)-The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to reappreciate any oral or documentary evidence.]'' 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that both parties are co-sharers and they had been adjusted as far as possible as provided under Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as such, no interference is required in the matter and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that both the parties are co-sharers. The revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by passing a cryptic order, without giving any reason in support thereof. The comparative hardship of the parties have not been considered and the revision has been allowed in the cursory manner. Since the revisional Court is the last Court of fact as such, revisional Court should examine the matter with most care and caution. On the question of comparative hardship, this Court in the case of Mahabeer v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others, 2005(99) RD 65, has held that revisional Court should examine the comparative hardship of both parties in the allotment of chak proceedings. 9. In the present case, Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to record reason while allowing the revision of respondent No. 4. Comparative hardship of both parties have not been considered at all which is necessary in the allotment proceeding as revisional Court is the last Court of fact and is exercising jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 10. Law is settled that a decision arrived at by any authority without giving any reason is a totally arbitrary decision. This Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2005 (99) RD 46, has held that one of the requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. 11. This Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2005 (99) RD 46, has held that one of the requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. 11. In view of above, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order of the revisional Court is not liable to be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. 12. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. 13. For a period of three months from today or till decision of the revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, whichever is earlier, status-quo with respect to possession be maintained by the parties on the spot. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.