GAYA DUTTA Vs. S.D.O. II, MAHARAJAGANJ, DISTRICT RAE BARELI
LAWS(ALL)-1963-12-22
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on December 04,1963

Gaya Dutta Appellant
VERSUS
S.D.O. Ii, Maharajaganj, District Rae Bareli Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.C. Desai, J. - (1.) This is a petition for certiorari for the quashing of an order dated 27-9-1961 passed by Sri Saun Ram designated as Sub-Divisional Officer II, Mahrajganj, under Section 12-C of the Panchayat Raj Act dismissing the petitioner's petition challenging the election of opposite party No. 2 as Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha. The petition came up for hearing before our brother Beg, who referred it to a larger Bench because of the importance of the question raised in it, whether there can be two Sub-Divisional Officers in one sub-division. It appears from the affidavit of the opposite party itself and copies of orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Rae Bareli that in Sub-Division Mahrajganj there were two officers exercising Sub-Divisional Officer's powers at first Sri H. M. Singh was Sub-Divisional Officer Mahrajganj with powers of Settlement Officer under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and certain other powers of a Sub-Divisional Officer and Sri Badri Narain was also Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahrajganj, having other powers of a Sub-Divisional Officer. Sri H. M. Singh was called Sub-Divisional Officer I, Mahrajganj and Sri Badri Narain, Sub-Divisional Officer II, Mahrajganj. Later Sri Badri Narain was transferred and Sri Saun Ram was appointed as Sub-Divisional Officer in his place, e.g. as Sub-Divisional Officer II, Mahrajganj. This is borne out by the fact that Sri Badri Narain and after him Sri Saun Ram designated themselves as Sub-Divisional Officer II, Mahrajganj. The opposite party's affidavit also shows that one officer was called Sub-Divisional Officer 1, Mahrajganj and the other Sub-Divisional Officer II, Mahrajganj.
(2.) Sub-Divisional Officers are appointed under Section 18 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Sub-Section (1) provides that the State Government may place any Assistant Collector of the first class "in charge of one or more Sub-Divisions of a district" and sub-Section (2) provides that "such Assistant Collector shall be called an Assistant Collector in charge of a Sub-Division or a Sub- Divisional Officer and shall exercise all the powers and discharge all the duties conferred and imposed upon him by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force." Prior to amendment to Section 18 by Act X of 1961 the State Government had no power to appoint Additional Sub-Divisional Officers or to place more than one Assistant Collector of the first class in charge of a Sub-Division but since the amendment the State Government has been given power by sub-Section (3) to "designate any Assistant Collector of the first class appointed to a district to be Additional Sub-Divisional Officer in one or more sub-divisions of the district" and "the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer shall exercise such powers and perform such duties of an Assistant Collector in charge of a sub-division in such cases or classes of cases as the State Government may direct." Sub-Section (5) provides that "the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, and of other law for the time being applicable to a Sub-Divisional Officer shall apply to every Additional Sub-Divisional Officer when exercising any powers or dis-charging any duties under sub-Section (4) as if he were a Sub-Divisional Officer. Under sub-Section (6) the State Government can delegate its powers under this section to the Collector of the district. The State Government through Rule 765 of Revenue Manual delegated to Collectors "their powers to place Assistant Collectors, first class, in charge of one or more sub-divisions of a district." It does not appear that the State Government delegated to Collectors their powers to designate Assistant Collectors of the first class as Additional Sub-Divisional Officers conferred by the newly added Section 18 (3) to the Collectors; at least no amendment to rule 765 has been brought to our notice.
(3.) Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act is to the effect that "the election of a person as Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha shall not be called in question except by an application presented to such authority as may be prescribed." The State Government has made Rule 24 in exercise of this power providing that "an application under Sub-Section (1) of Section 12-C of the Act shall be presented before the Sub-Divisional Officer within whose jurisdiction the Sabha concerned lies," and Rule 25 providing that "every election petition shall be tried by the Sub-Divisional Officer, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suits", and that "the District Magistrate may at any stage, withdraw any application under sub-Section (1) of Section 12-C of the Act pending in the district for disposal and (a) himself try or dispose of the same, or (b) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Assistant Collector of the First Class.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.