Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1221 (ALL)

Hanuman v. State of U. P.

2022-08-03

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2022
JUDGMENT : CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Murli Dhar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B.R.P. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is being heard and decided finally at the admission stage. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act filed at the instance of respondent nos. 3 and 4 in which petitioners were opposite parties, was allowed without substitute the heir of deceased-Bhagwan Das and the revision was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision. He further submitted that in view of the provisions contained under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself can decide the revision on merit in place of remanding the matter back to the Consolidation Officer. 4. On the other hand, Sri B.R.P. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 submitted that by the impugned order, the matter has been remanded back to the Consolidation Officer, as such, there is no necessary to substitute the heir of deceased opposite party and entire parties will be heard by the Consolidation Officer while deciding the objection afresh in pursuance of the revisional order, as such, no interference is required. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that during pendency of the revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act, one of the opposite party-Bhagwan Das has died and his heirs were not substituted in the revision and the revision was allowed by the impugned order and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the objection afresh. 7. The provisions of Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act is as follows: “48. 7. The provisions of Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act is 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 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) Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised 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). 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 re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence.” 8. Explanation (3) of the Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act specifically states that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wide power to appreciate the evidence etc. as such, in view of the provisions contained under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act in place of remanding the matter back, he himself can decide the revision on merit after affording the opportunity of hearing to both the parties in accordance of law. This Court in a Case reported in Chandrama vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia and Others, 2017 (134) RD 555 has held that order of remand passed by Revisional Court under U.P.C.H. Act is not going to serve any useful purpose except prolonging the litigation. This Court in a Case reported in Chandrama vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia and Others, 2017 (134) RD 555 has held that order of remand passed by Revisional Court under U.P.C.H. Act is not going to serve any useful purpose except prolonging the litigation. 9. The order passed by the Revisional Court without substituting the heirs of the contesting opposite party is also fatal. This Court in a case reported in Gajjoo vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, 1995 R.D. 231 has held that allowing the revision without substituting the legal heirs of deceased party in the revision will make the revisional order illegal. 10. In another decision of this Court reported in Bansi Kanhai vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation U.P. Lucknow, AIR 1967 All. 592 has held that Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision cannot reject the application for bringing on record the legal heir of deceased respondent on the ground of delay. 11. Considering the provision of Section 48 Explanation (3) of the U.P.C.H. Act as well as the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Gajjoo (supra) and Bansi Kanhai (supra) impugned revisional order dated 24.6.2022 appears to be based on wrong assumptions and manifestly illegal. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, impugned order dated 24.6.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mahrajganj is set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent no. 2 i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mahrajganj to restore the revision on its original number and decide the same in accordance with law after substituting the legal heirs of deceased opposite party (Bhagwan Das) on the application of the revisionist, expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him without granting unnecessary adjournment to the parties. 13. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.