- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 11-1-2002 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The Respondent No. 2 filed objection under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming allotment of original holding plot No. 56. The objection was rejected against which an appeal was filed. The appeal was partly allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by order dated 29-7-2000. An application to recall the order dated 29-7-2000 was filed on which the Settlement Officer of Consolidation again passed an order dated 7-4-2001. A revision was filed by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 11-1-2001 against which order the petitioner has come up to this Court in this writ petition.
(2.) SRI M. D. Misra appearing for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed error in himself disturbing the chak of the petitioner and making re- allotment. According to his submission the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not have power under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to reallocate the chak and in the present case he ought to have remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation for reallocation of chaks if he is satisfied that the area of the petitioner has been increased by more than 55 per cent. SRI M. D. Misra has referred the provisions of Section 21 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and has submitted that under Section 21 (2) of the Act the duty is caste on the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the appeal after spot inspection. He has further referred the provisions of Section 21 (4) and stated that if, during the course of disposal of an objection or hearing of an appeal. Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer of Consolidation is of the opinion that material injustice is likely to be caused to a number of tenure holders in giving effect to the Provisional Consolidation Scheme, as prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, or as subsequently modified by the Consolidation Officer, and that a fair and proper allotment of land to the tenure-holders of the units is not possible without revising the Provisional Consolidation Scheme, or getting a fresh one prepared, it shall be lawful, for reasons to be recorded in writing to revise the Provisional Consolidation Scheme, after giving opportunity of being heard to the tenure- holders concerned. He has further submitted that Section 21 clearly indicates that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been clothed with power of allotment and re-allotment. He has submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not possess such power and it was not within the power of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to reallocate the chaks and disturb the chak of the petitioner. SRI Misra has further submitted that the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation is erroneous and not in accordance with law. After having heard counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record it is clear that the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order has allowed the revision and has made amendment in the chak of the petitioner as well as the Respondents No. 2. The legal submission which has been raised by Sri Misra is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not possess the power for allotment and it was necessary to remand the matter to the Settlement Officer Consolidation, has to be considered. The U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is special Act which contains the provisions for implementation of the consolidation in a unit. The consolidation proceedings proceed in different stages. Under Section 19 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the consolidation scheme is required to be prepared according to the principles referred to under Section 19. Section 19-A relates to the preparation of Provisional Consolidation Scheme by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Provisional Consolidation Scheme is to be published and objections are to be filed. Section 21 pertains to disposal of objection to the Provisional Consolidation Scheme and sub-section (2) of Section 21 provides filing of appeal. Sri Misra is correct in his submission that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been clothed with power to re-allocate the chak and to make spot inspection as contemplated under Section 21 (3 ). Section 21 (4) gives ample jurisdiction to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to make allotment and re-allotment. The question which has been raised by him is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 cannot himself make allotment and it ought to have remanded the matter. Sri Misra has further stated that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may have power with regard to title dispute and the Deputy Director of Consolidation may have right to interfere in an order which arises out of the proceedings under Section 11 but the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot himself make allotment arising out of the proceedings under Section 20. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act does not create any differentiation in the powers of the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the revision arising out of the proceedings under Sections 11 and 21 of the Act. The power under Section 48 of the Act is in uniform and can reach in the same manner and with some scrutiny whether the order is passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation under Section 11 or under Section 21 (2) of the Act. Section 48 of the Act does not contemplate any differentiation nor the words under Section 48 are capable of any such interpretation. The submission of Sri Misra that the power of the Deputy Director of Consolidation differs with regard to the proceedings under Sections 11 and 21 cannot be accepted. The main thrust of Sri Misra is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot himself reallocate the chaks.
(3.) SECTION 48 (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act provides: "section 48 (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 of 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 makes such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. " The last line of Section 48 of the Act which provides that after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, made such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit, gives very wide power to Deputy Director of Consolidation. The power given to the Deputy Directory of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is to be comprehend in widest terms. The revisional power given under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code clearly shows that it is not as comprehensive as the power of Section 48. The apex Court in 2000 (1) JCLR 737 (SC): 2000, (3) S. C. C. 103: Sheo Nand & othersv. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others,while considering the scope of power of Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 held: - " (20 ). The section gives very wide powers to the Deputy Director. It enables him either suo motuon his own motion or on the application of any person to consider the propriety, legality, regularity and correctness of all the proceedings held under the Act and to pass appropriate orders. These powers have been conferred on the Deputy Director in the widest terms so that the claims of the parties under the Act may effectively adjudicated upon and determined so as to confer finality to the rights of the parties and the revenue records may be prepared accordingly. ";