Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 36 (ALL)

Rana Singh v. Settlement Officer Consolidation

2023-01-04

SIDDHARTH

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; leaned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents and perused the material on record. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the impugned orders dated 12.9.2014 and 15.10.2014 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Jaunpur, whereby the cases have been transferred by Settlement Officer of Consolidation from concerned Consolidation Officer from his circle to other circle in violation of Section 42(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (hereafter referred to as “U.P.C.H. Act”) and Rule 65 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, (hereafter referred to as “U.P.C.H. Rules”) 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that by the impugned order dated 12.9.2014, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Jaunpur, (S.O.C.) has transferred the objections/cases pending under Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act of Village Virbhanpur, Pargana Rari, Tehsil Sadar, District Jaunpur from Consolidation Officer, Badlapur to Consolidation Officer, Sadar. By the impugned order dated 15.10.2014, the objections/cases under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act belonging to Village Virbhanpur, Paragana Rari, Tehsil Sadar, District Jaunpur have been transferred from Consolidation Officer, Badlapur to Consolidation Officer, Ramnagar, Bhadsara (Ist) by the S.O.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is a complete code in itself and Rule 65 of U.P.C.H. Rules therein prescribes complete procedure concerning the transfer of particular case from one Presiding Officer to another after hearing the parties by a judicial order. 5. In the present case, the petitioners were never heard before passing of the impugned orders. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has filed counter affidavit stating that in District Jaunpur Settlement Officers of Consolidation are working as per territorial jurisdiction assigned to them, namely, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Old Unit and Settlement Officer of Consolidation, New Unit. Village Virbhanpur, Paragana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, District Jaunpur comes within the jurisdiction of Consolidation Officer, Badlapur and there are circles, namely, Sadar, Badlapur, Ram Naga, Bharsara (Ist) and Ram Nagar, Bharsara (IInd), which come within the jurisdiction of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Old Unit. 7. The petitioners have directly approached this Court without availing alternative remedy of revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 7. The petitioners have directly approached this Court without availing alternative remedy of revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that 375 cases were pending under Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act of Villaga Virbhanpur before Consolidation Officer, Badlapur, District Jaunpur, who requested Settlement Officer of Consolidation to transfer them before any other Consolidation Officer. Hence Settlement Officer of Consolidation transferred the cases pending under Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act before the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Jaunpur as per Rule 65 of U.P.C.H. Rules of 1954. Similarly by the order dated 15.10.2014, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Jaunpur, transferred the objections/cases under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act from the court of Consolidation Officer, Badlapur, Jaunpur, to court of Consolidation Officer, Ram Nagar, Bharsara (Ist), Jaunpur, which comes under the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Jaunpur, Old Unit, who has transferred the cases, within his under jurisdiction and not beyond his jurisdiction. 8. After hearing the rival contentions, a look at Section 42 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act and Rule 65 of U.P.C.H. Rules, would be relevant:- “Section 42 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act :-Officers and authorities. - (2) The District Deputy Director of Consolidation may, subject to such directions as the Director of Consolidation may issue from time to time, demarcate the circles to be assigned to Consolidation Lekhpals, Consolidators and other authorities appointed for the district under sub-section (1).” “Rule 65 of U.P. C.H. Act. -(1) The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, may withdraw any case from the file of any Consolidation Officer or Assistant Consolidation Officer subordinate to him and may refer the same for disposal to any other Consolidation Officer or Assistant Consolidation Officer competent to deal therewith. [(1A) The Officer before whom appeals, revisions or references under the provisions of the Act or these rules are instituted may transfer any case instituted or pending before him to any other officer empowered to hear and decide such case, or recall case pending before any other officer from the file of that officer to his, own file. [(1A) The Officer before whom appeals, revisions or references under the provisions of the Act or these rules are instituted may transfer any case instituted or pending before him to any other officer empowered to hear and decide such case, or recall case pending before any other officer from the file of that officer to his, own file. The District Deputy Director of Consolidation of a district where Joint/Deputy/Assistant Director of Consolidation i s posted may call for record of any revision or case pending before such officer for disposal and may transfer it to such officer if he is unable to decide it for some reason.] (2) The Director of Consolidation may withdraw any case from the file of any Settlement Officer, Consolidation, and refer the same to any other Settlement Officer Consolidation for disposal..” 9. A perusal of Rule 65 shows that the proceedings under the aforesaid Act are judicial in nature and the orders by Settlement Officer of Consolidation while exercising the powers under Rule 65 (1) of the Rules are revisable under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 10. The orders impugned have been passed without hearing the petitioners. As per the rule, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation can withdraw any case from the file of any Consolidation and Assistant Consolidation Officer subordinate to him and may refer the same for disposal to any other Consolidation Officer or Assistant Consolidation Officer competent to deal therewith. 11. In the present case, the records of the cases under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act have been transferred in number of 100s. The orders impugned have been passed not in any judicial proceedings but by the orders which appear to be administrative in nature. 12. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the transfer has been made by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Jaunpur, Old Unit within his area of jurisdiction, but the impugned orders do not show that they have been passed by the Consolidation Officer, Jaunpur, Old Unit or New Unit. 13. This Court in the case of Taz Mohammad Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti and others, 2006 (100) RD 386 has considered and held that order under Rule 65 cannot be passed without issuing notice to the concerned Consolidation Officer and giving opportunity of hearing to the tenure holders of the village. 14. 13. This Court in the case of Taz Mohammad Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti and others, 2006 (100) RD 386 has considered and held that order under Rule 65 cannot be passed without issuing notice to the concerned Consolidation Officer and giving opportunity of hearing to the tenure holders of the village. 14. Orders impugned do not fall within the scope of Rules 65 of the Rules aforesaid in view of the aforesaid ratio settled by this Court, the order impugned cannot be said to be in accordance with Rule 65 of the Rules aforesaid. 15. In the case of Palakdhari Singh (dead) Vs. Commissioner Consolidation U.P., 2003 (95) RD 141 , this Court has held that the transfer of case from one court to another or one district to another behind back of the parities is arbitrary and illegal since such orders are not administrative but judicial in nature. 16. In view of the above consideration, the impugned orders passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Jaunpur, are hereby quashed. 17. This writ petition is allowed. 18. It is open for the Settlement Officer of Consolidation aforesaid to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, if required.