B.L.Yadav - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the impugned order dated 4-1-1990 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act). Counter and Rejoinder- Affidavits have been exchanged. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that the petition may be disposed of finally on merits.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that without entering into the controversy in respect of the fact, moot question of law may be decided as to whether against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 10th June 1987 revision was maintainable before the Deputy Director of Consolidation or not. Reliance was placed on the statutory provisions of Section 48 of the Act and the decisions of this Court in Hori Lal v. D D C. Allahabad, 1982 RD 78 and Ramdas v. D.D.C., 1979 AWC 513. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand urged that the petitioners have already filed an appeal which is pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Under these circumstances there was no justification on their behalf to file the revision and as such the revision could not be said to be maintainable. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, point for determination is as to whether the revision is maintainable against the order of Consolidation Officer under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act.
(3.) THE revisional power of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been given under Section 48 (1) of the Act which is set out below :- "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 or any order (other than interlocutory order) passed by such authority in the case of proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case of proceedings as he thinks fit." Section 48 (1) of the Act has to be read along with Sections 11 and 11-A of the Act. Section 11 provides for an appeal against the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or the Consolidation Officer within 21 days from the date of order. Section 11-A provides for objection in respect of claims to land, partition of joint holdings, valuation of plots, trees, wells and other improvements etc. but it does not say that no revision would be maintainable against the order of Consolidation Officer THE interpretation of Section 48 has to be textual and contextual. It appears that the Legislature was conscious that whatever might be the position of the appeal but the remedy of revision must be made available against the order of Consolidation Officer, Assistant Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation This appears to be the reason for adding Explanation 1 to Section 48 by the U. P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act No. 3 of 1968 which runs as under: "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." In this view of the matter it is obvious that against the order of Consolidation Officer revision was maintainable before the Director of Consolidation. In Horilal v. Deputy Director of Coosolidation Allahabad, 1982 RD 78 (Supra) it has been held on page 82 para 13 that the Director of Consolidation if he finds on the facts and circumstances of the case that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer or Assistant Consolidation Officer suffers from any manifest error of law, he can very well interfere with such orders in exercise of powers under Section 48 (1) of the Act.;