- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Present petition is directed against the order dated 27-12-2002 passed by the Depty Director of Consolidation in exercise of powers under Section 48 (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(2.) THE dispute in this petition revolves round plot No. 2375/9 admeasuring 1 Bigha, 7 Biswas and 17 Dhur situated in village Aksauli Tappa 84 Pargana Kantit Tahsil Sadar District Mirzapur. It appears from the materials on record that the disputed plot was allocated to the petitioner in his Chak in the proceedings under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and actual possession was also delivered, according to the petitioner on 30-10-1985. In the self same proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, plot No. 2375/8 came to be allocated to one Ram Batuk. Ram Batuk executed a sale-deed of the said land in favour of contesting Opp. Parties Vijai Shanker and Ram Kumar. THE present dispute has its genesis in some application which was moved by the transferes-contesting respondents under Section 42-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for correction of entry of plot No. 2375/9 in place of 2375/8 as recorded in the revenue record. In pursuance of this application, Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation referred the matter to the Deputy Director Consolidation who by his order dated 27-12-2002 allowed the application and passed order for incorporating entry of plot No. 2375/9 in place of 2375/8 in the revenue record in favour of the contesting respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the impugned order has been made without regard being had to the facts that the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner in consolidation proceedings and physical/actual possession thereof was delivered to the petitioner as far back as in the year 1985. It is further submitted that the opp. parties 5 and 6 were non- entity at the relevant time and one Ram Batuk had been allotted Chak in plot No. 2357/8 during consolidation operation and he was recorded as such in the CH Form No. 23 and further that the contesting respondents being subsequent purchasers of plot No. 2375/8, the same having been purchased on 23-7-86 by them, have no right to bring in any such application and such application made by the contesting opp. parties was not maintainable under the provision of law. He further submitted that Deputy Director Consolidation in making the orders for correction of revenue record had not applied its mind to most material and vital facts and the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner nor has he assigned any reasons as the basis for his order. Sri H. P. Mishra learned Counsel representing the Opp. Parties tried to lend justification to the orders stating that it was rightly passed consistent with the provision of law. However, he was evasive when confronted with the order that it did not contain any reasons or finding as the basis for allowing the application. Since elaborate arguments have been advanced at the very threshold and both the parties have consented for disposal of the case at the motion hearing stage, I proceed to dispose of the petition finally.
(3.) BEFORE dealing with the submissions advanced across the bar, it would be appropriate to have acquaintance with the provisions of Section 42-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act: "42-A. Correction of clerical or arithmetical errors.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, is satisfied that a clerical or arithmetical error apparent on the face of the record exists in any document prepared under any provision of this Act, he shall either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested, correct the same. " From a bare reading of this section, it would crystallise that an arithmetical and clerical mistake could be corrected in exercise of powers under Section 42-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. From a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation qua the aforestated provisions, it is too patent to be ignored that he did not apply his mind to the matter at issue before him and jumped to the conclusions that recommendations made by the Settlement Officer Consolidation commended for acceptance. Mere mention in the impugned order that parties were heard does not meet the exacting requirements of the provisions. Besides, there is conspicuous absence of discussion of the arguments advanced across the bar as also the findings for converging to the conclusions for acceptance of the report of Settlement Officer Consolidation and by this reckoning, the order is impaired and cannot be sustained for want of finding and discussion of arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. From a composite reading of provisions contained in Sections 48 (1), (2) and (3) of the Act, it leaves no manner of doubt that while dealing with the proceeding under Section 48 (3) i. e. proceeding referred by any subordinate authority, the Deputy Director Consolidation will proceed in the matter in accordance with the provisions of Section 48 (1) i. e. in order to pass an order under Section 48 (3), he is called upon to 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 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. The necessary implication of the provision aforestated is that the Deputy Director Consolidation has to record finding so as to indicate that he has satisfied himself as to the regularity of the proceedings ; or as to the correctness legality or propriety of matter in his seisine. As stated supra the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation is bereft of finding or the reason so as to indicate that he has satisfied himself as to the regularity of the proceedings or as to the correctness legality or propriety of the matter in this seisine and by this reckoning the order suffers from the taint of having been passed without proper application of mind and without assigning any reason for his satisfaction as to the regularity, correctness legality or propriety of the matter. It would not be beside the point to observe here that functions envisaged under the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act are the quasi judicial functions which entails recording of reasons comprising considerations of materials and relevant factors with concomitant duties to see that justice has been done between the parties and failure to do so would be occasioning failure of justice and such an order would be vitiated in law and the same cannot be sustained.;