S.N. Singh, J. - (1.) THE dispute in the present case is in respect of plot No. 2964/3 measuring 6 aores situate in village Parasrampur Tappa Nandaun, pargana Nizamabad district Azamgarh. It appears that the Petitioners filed an objection claiming sirdari right over this plot. This objection of theirs was decided by the Dy. Director (Consolidation) in revision on 15th of November 1962. By this order the Dy. Director (Consolidation) set aside the order of the subordinate authorities and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer with a direction to decide the case after local inspection. It appears that for some reason or the other, the inspection was delayed. The Consolidation Officer inspected the locality and the case was put up before him on 3rd of January, 1964. It is disputed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that complete inspection had been done. However, I am not concerned with that point for the decision of this case. Suffice it to say that the Consolidation Officer dismissed the Claim of the Petitioners on the ground that the Statement of Proposals had been confirmed on 28th of March, 1962 as such he could not decide the case on merits. It appears that a revision was filed against the order of the Consolidation Officer on 18th of February 1965. During the pendency of this revision identification was made in January 1966. The case thereafter came before the Dy. Director (Consolidation) for final disposal. The Dy. Director (Consolidation) appears to have thought that this case was governed by the 1958 Act unamended by Act No. VIII of 1963 and since Sub -section (2) was not there in the unamended Act, it was not possible to consider the revision on merits. Accordingly he dismissed the revision on that short ground.
(2.) AGGRIEVED with the orders of the consolidation authorities, the present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners. The Petitioners have submitted that in view of Section 52(2) of the UP Consolidation of Holding; Act as amended up to date the view of the Dy. Director (Consolidation) that the revision could not be decided on merits is patently erroneous on the face of the records. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Ram Lal Singh v. Consolidation Officer Faizabad, 1968 AWR 684 and Gopi Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Bulandshahr, 1967 AWR 264. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties on the point raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. In my opinion, in view of the Division Bench case in Ramlal Singh v. Consolidation Officer Faizabad (supra) this petition should be allowed. On the facts stated above it is clear that the revision, which was filed on 18th of February 1965, was pending the day when identification was made. In this view of the matter Section 52(2) is clearly applicable. The view of the Dy. Director of Consolidation that it is the old Act of 1958, which was applicable as such Section 52(2) will not be applicable does not appear to be correct. When by Act No. VIII of 1963 Sub -section (2) was added in Section 52, it will be deemed to have been added to the Act of 1953 and thus Section 52 amended would be applicable to all enactments whether it is 1958 Act or the original Act of 1953, This Section 52(2) will be applicable to all cases whether they, are under the amended, or under the unamended Act. It will equally apply to all. Once Section 52(2) is applied, I am clear in my mind that the Dy. Director (Consolidation) failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him bylaw. He should have decided the revision petition on merits.
(3.) MR . Gyan Prakash submits that the revision itself was not maintainable. It is not for me to express any opinion on this point. It will be for him to raise this question before the Dy. Director (Consolidation), who will decide it according to law.;