R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner mainly prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.10.1989 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda.
(2.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that on publication of C.LI. Form No. 5 in the village, after enforcement of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short "the Act", the petitioner filed an objection claiming that he was the owner-in-possession of plots No. 2718 and 2719 of the village Jarar, District Banda, for short "the land in dispute" and on enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, he acquired Bhumidhari rights in the land in dispute. The land in dispute was wrongly shown as Bhita and pond in the revenue papers. The objection filed by the petitioner was contested by the Gaon Sabha of the said village which claimed that the said plots were rightly recorded as Bhita and pond and that they were the property of the Gaon Sabha. The parties in support of their cases produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Consolidation Officer after going through the evidence on record allowed the objection of the petitioner by his judgment and order dated 13.5.1981. The respondent No. 2 aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation also dismissed the appeal as barred by time by his judgment and order dated 11.6.1987. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer, thus, stood affirmed. Against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, no revision was filed by respondent No. 2 and on the basis of the aforesaid orders the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue papers as Bhumidhar of the land in dispute. However, one Kishori Lal, the respondent No. 3, without the consent of the Pradhan and permission of the Collector, got filed a revision through a private counsel before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The petitioner when came to know about the aforesaid revision, filed an application that the revision filed by the respondent No. 3 was legally not maintainable. Sri Ram Sajiwan, who was the Pradhan of the village at the relevant time, also filed an affidavit that the Gaon Sabha did not file any revision. Thereafter, the village where the land in dispute is situated, was renotified under section 52 of the Act on 9.9.1989. The respondent No. 3 also filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 13.5.1981. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, under the facts and circumstances, deferred the disposal of the two appeals vide his order dated 26.4.1988 till the disposal of the revision which was pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Against the order dated 26.4.1988, the respondent No. 3 filed a revision. The petitioner objected to the maintainability of the revision filed by the respondent No. 3. It was contended that the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation deferring the hearing of the appeal was interlocutory in nature and against the said order a revision was legally not maintainable under section 48 of the Act. It was also urged that the respondent No. 3, Kishori Lai had no right to file a revision. The respondent No. 1 without going into the question of maintainability of the revision, allowed the revision by his judgment and order dated 3.10.1989 and directed to initiate proceedings under subsection (3) of section 48 of the Act after noticing wrong facts in the order to the effect that the village was not denotified under section 52 of the Act, hence the present petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the respondent No. 1 has noticed wrong facts in his order to the effect that the village Jarar was not denotified under section 52 of the Act when actually it was denotified on 9.9.1989. After noticing wrong facts, he has passed the impugned order which was apparently erroneous and in excess of the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1. It was also urged that the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation deferring the hearing of appeal was interlocutory in nature. Against the said order, a revision under section 48 of the Act was not maintainable. Further, the respondent No. 3 had no right to file the appeal or the revision as he was not a party to the proceeding before the Consolidation Officer. It was also urged that the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation, referred to above, became final and operate as res judicata between the parties. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. In support of his submissions, he has referred to and relied upon the decisions of Mahendra Narain Singh and others v. Radhey Shyam, 1982 RD 66 and Hari Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, 1989 RD 281.;