Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1951 (ALL)

Bhoora Singh v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation

2024-08-29

DINESH PATHAK

body2024
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Pathak, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents as well as learned counsel for Gaon Sabha. 2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, this Court proceeds to decide the instant writ petition finally, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties who are present in the Court, without calling for their respective affidavits. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.') whereby revision filed on behalf of the petitioner, arising out of proceeding under Section 9-B of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act'), has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability. 4. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is manifested that the question involved in the instant writ petition lies in a narrow compass as to whether revision under section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'S.O.C.') under Section 9-B(3) of U.P.C.H. Act is maintainable or not. D.D.C. has held that order passed by S.O.C. under section 9-B(3) of U.P.C.H. Act is final order on the merits of case, thus, revision against said order is not maintainable. 5. Section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act denotes the provision wherein any person aggrieved with the statement of principles prepared under Section 8-A of U.P.C.H. Act has legal right to challenge the same by moving an objection under Section 9-B(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. Sub section 2 discuss the situation where no objection has been filed against the statement of principles, however, the Consolidation Officer on his own wisdom, in case, comes to conclusion that there is need to examine the correctness of statement of principles, he shall make local inspection of the unit and pass appropriate order after due notice to the Consolidation Committee. Section 9-B(3) of U.P.C.H. Act gives statutory right to the aggrieved person to file an appeal against the order passed under sub section 1 and 2 of Section 9-B. For ready reference Section 9B of U.P.C.H. Act is quoted herein below :- "9-B. Disposal of objections on the Statement of Principles.- (1) Where objections have been filed against the Statement of Principles under Section 9, the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall, after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned and after taking into consideration the views of the Consolidation Committee, submit his report to the Consolidation Officer, who shall dispose of the objections in the manner prescribed. (2) Where no objections have been filed against the Statement of Principles within the time provided therefor under Section 9, the Consolidation Officer shall, with a view to examining its correctness, make local inspection of the unit, after giving due notice to the Consolidation Committee, and may thereafter make such modifications or alterations in the Statement of Principles as he may consider necessary. (3) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Consolidation Officer under sub-section (1), or sub-section (2), may, within 21 days of the date of the order, file an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, whose decision, except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, shall be final. (4) The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, shall, before deciding an objection or an appeal, make local inspection of the unit after giving due notice to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee.)" 6. Language employed under sub section 3 of Section 9-B unequivocally enunciates that the order passed by the appellate court shall be final "except as otherwise provided by or under this Act". The D.D.C., in his own wisdom, has misread and misinterpreted the aforesaid phrased and comes to conclusion that order passed by the S.O.C. became final and aggrieved person has no option to resort to the remedy of filing revision under section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. 7. The phrase "except as otherwise provided by or under this Act" indicates that order passed by S.O.C. is generally final, however, same is subject to any exceptions or further recourse that may be specified within the Act itself or under any rules, regulations, or notifications issued under the Act. Thus, this finality is not absolute and this section effectively provides an exception. Thus, this finality is not absolute and this section effectively provides an exception. The U.P.C.H. Act includes provisions that allow for further recourse or exceptions to this finality; specifically as enunciated under section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. Needless to say that similar phrase has been used by the legislation under Section 11 (1), where provision of filing an appeal arising out of proceeding under Section 9-A of U.P.C.H. Act has been given, and under Section 21(2) of U.P.C.H. Act which enunciates resorting to remedy of filing an appeal assailing the order passed under section 21 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act. Intention of legislation in all these sections is abundantly clear that order passed by the S.O.C. in appeal may be assailed in the revisional jurisdiction of the D.D.C. who has been entrusted ample power to examine the correctness, legality or proprietory of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, returned by the Consolidation Officer or the S.O.C., and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence, as enunciated under Explanation 3 to Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. Needless to say that the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Consolidation Officer and the S.O.C. are subordinate to the D.D.C./Director of Consolidation, as enunciated under Explanation 1 to Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. Thus, the remedy to file a revision is a right of the litigant which is provided under the Statute and the same cannot be curtailed by any authority on his own whims. It appears that the D.D.C. has failed to understand the phrase "except as otherwise provided by or under this Act" which means that the litigant can resort to the remedy in case same is available under the Act and the rules or regulations made there in. 8. In this conspectus, as above, I am of the considered view that the D.D.C. has failed to exercise his revisional jurisdiction so vested in him by law. He has misread and misinterpreted the provision as enunciated under Section 9-B(3) of U.P.C.H. Act on his own whims and against the very intention of the legislation. As such, instant writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the D.D.C. is hereby quashed. He has misread and misinterpreted the provision as enunciated under Section 9-B(3) of U.P.C.H. Act on his own whims and against the very intention of the legislation. As such, instant writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the D.D.C. is hereby quashed. Revision no.0008 of 2024 filed on behalf of Bhoora Singh (petitioner herein) is restored to its original number and the parties are relegated before the D.D.C. to get the revision decided afresh on merits. It is expected that the D.D.C. shall decide the revision in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.