- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned coun sel for the parties.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 8-10-1984, contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, passed by the respondent No. 2 and order dated 27-11- 1991, contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 1. The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition are that before the Assis tant Consolidation Officer a compromise was alleged to have been arrived at be tween the parties on the basis of which the case was decided. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Con solidation Officer an appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Settlement Of ficer Consolidation. The Settlement Of ficer Consolidation after hearing the par ties and perusing the material on the record held that the Assistant Consolida tion Officer had acted in excess of his juris diction in deciding the question of heir- ship, that there were cuttings in the order, which made it suspicious, that there were no signatures of two members of the Con solidation Committee and that the provisions of Rule 25-A of the Rules, framed under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, were not followed. Having recorded the aforesaid findings, the appeal was allowed and the case was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh, by judgment and order dated 12-4-1990. Challenging the validity of the said order the Respondent No. 3 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolida tion allowed the revision by the impugned order dated 27-11- 1991 holding that there was no illegality in the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and that the reasons given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in his order have not been met by the Deputy Director of Consolida tion and the order of the Settlement Of ficer Consolidation has been set aside wholly arbitrarily and illegally. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent supported the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was urged that the order passed by the Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation was concluded by the findings of fact, which could not be inter fered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the record. It is not disputed that the case was decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of alleged com promise. The validity of the alleged com promise was challenged by filing an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolida tion. The Settlement Officer Consolida tion recorded findings as noted above and those findings are based on the material on the record. It was held that the said com promise was not signed by the two mem bers of the Consolidation Committee as provided under Rule 25-A of the Rules framed under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The said finding was recorded taking into consideration, the affidavit filed by one of the members of the Consolidation Committee, namely, Jagannath Rai, who denied his signature on the compromise. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not touch the fact of filing of affidavit by Mr. Jagannath Rai and on the other hand stated that there were signatures of other members about whom the Settlement Officer Consolidation did not make a mention in his order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not look into the validity or correctness of the affidavit filed by Jagannath Rai and wholly arbitrarily came to the conclusion that the compromise arrived at between the parties before the Assistant Consolidation Of ficer was valid. It may be noted that other findings recorded by the Settlement Of ficer Consolidation on the questions in volved in the case have not been reversed. The effect of the order passed by the Settle ment Officer Consolidation was that the case would have been decided on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the par ties concerned, therefore, there was no jus tification for the Deputy Director of Con solidation to uphold the validity of the com promise, the correctness of which was dis puted by the parties and which was found illegal by the Settlement Officer Consolida tion. There was no justification for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to allow the revision. In view of what has been stated above this petition deserves to be allowed.;