Krishna Mohan Dayal, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed by Smt. Jaldhara and others against the judgment and orders passed by the Deputy Director (Consolidation) and other Consolidation Authorities. The petitioners have claimed that they were the sirdars of the disputed land. There was an earlier series of litigations between the parties which was ultimately decided in their favour. The final judgment in that case operated as res judicata against the contesting respondents.
(2.) CONSOLIDATION operations commenced under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953. In the basic year, the petitioners were recorded as Bhumidhar of the disputed Khata. Objections were filed by the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 or their predecessors -in -interest claiming that they were the Bhumidhars of the disputed land and the names of the petitioners over the disputed khata was wrongly recorded. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objections of the respondents Nos. 4 to 6 and ordered the expunction of the names of the petitioners from the disputed Khata. Three appeals were filed on behalf of the petitioners in respect of the various khatas under Section 11(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. All the appeals were dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The petitioners thereupon filed three revisions under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. These revisions were dismissed in default on 2 -12 -1971. Restoration applications were filed by the petitioners in all the revisions. The revisions of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. Revision Nos. 6128 and 6129 were restored. The revision of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, i.e. revision No. 6134 was not restored and the restoration application was dismissed on the ground that on the date fixed no Medical Certificate was produced nor the name of the disease was mentioned with which the applicants in revision were suffering. Consequently the dismissal of the revision No. 6134 dated 2 -12 -1971 became final. After restoration the revision Nos. 6128 and 6129 were given fresh Nos. 6081 and 6083. These revisions were dismissed on merits by order dated 8 -2 -1972. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The facts of the case in all the revisions were similar. The entire land in dispute formed part of the khata of which the respondents Nos. 4 to 6 claimed to be Bhumidhars. The land was in sub -tenancy of one Jokhu and all the petitioners claim through him. Under the circumstances the case of the petitioners in respect of the land in dispute was same.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has also challenged the order dated 2 -12 -1971, dismissing the revision No. 6134 in default and also the order dated 1 -1 -1972 refusing to restore the revision and decide the same on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Deputy Director (Consolidation) failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him in dismissing the revision in default. Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act provided that the Deputy Director (Consolidation) may call for examining 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 proceeding; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. Once the record of the case was called for, the absence or presence of the applicant or the respondent was not material. If the Deputy Director (Consolidation) wanted to dispose of the case after calling for the record he was bound to examine the record and pass orders on merits. Thus, the order of the Deputy Director (Consolidation) rejecting the revision in default without going into merits is illegal. The learned counsel relied upon a case Smt. K.L. Sehgal v. Commissioner of Allahabad and others : 1971 ALJ. 595 (D.B.), where a similar matter relating to Section 3(3) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947 came for examination before the Bench. In that case a revision was dismissed in default under sub -section 3 of Section 3 of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act by the Commissioner. Sub -section 3 provided that the Commissioner, if he was not satisfied as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order of the District Magistrate or to the regularity of proceedings before him may alter or reverse his order or make such orders as may be just and proper. Interpreting that provision the Division Bench held that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to dismiss the revision in default. He was bound to decide the same on merits. The same is the position under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holding Act. The Deputy Director (Consolidation) had absolutely no jurisdiction to dismiss the revision in default on 2 -12 -1971. He further acted illegally in refusing to restore the same as the order of dismissal itself was illegal. I, thus, quash the orders dated 1 -1 -1972 and 2 -12 -1971 passed in Revision No. 6134 filed by petitioners Nos. 3 and 4.;