SRIMATI TULSA AND ANR. Vs. DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, RAE BARELI, SRI G.M. MURTAZA AND ANR.
LAWS(ALL)-1964-8-39
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 19,1964

Srimati Tulsa And Anr. Appellant
VERSUS
District Director Of Consolidation, Rae Bareli, Sri G.M. Murtaza And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.N.Nigam, J. - (1.) Srimati Tulsa and another filed Writ Petition No. 596 of 1963 under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 20th August, 1963 passed by the District Director of Consolidation, Rae Bareli copy of which is annexure 3 with the petition. We may here point out that the name of opposite-party No. 1 does not appear to have been correctly mentioned. The officer purported to act in exercise of his powers as a Director of Consolidation and the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (U.P. Act V of 1954) does not envisage any officer by the name of District Director of Consolidation.
(2.) In the petition it was stated that plot No. 1206 of village Panhauna, Pargana Inhauna, Distt. Rae Bareli was entered in the name of Mata Prasad who left only two daughters, the present petitioners. The Khata was not ancestral. During the consolidation proceedings the petitioners applied for entry of their names in place of Mata Prasad. Opposite-party No. 2 filed an objection and claimed to be in possession since long. Three other persons also filed objection whose claim was rejected by the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner's claim was accepted. Opposite-party No. 2 filed an appeal, then a second appeal and finally a revision application before opposite-party No. 1 on 17th May, 1963 and this revision application was allowed, hence the writ petition.
(3.) The petition came up for hearing before the learning Chief Justice and he was of opinion that the abolition of the office of the Deputy Director did not affect the question of his subordination to the Director and that a Director may revise an order passed by the Deputy Director even under the amended Section 48 (as amended by U.P. Act VIII of 1963). He further recorded the opinion that there was nothing manifestly wrong or illegal in the impugned order as he had found that Ram Saran had become a sirdar because of his being in cultivatory possession in the year 1359 Fasli. Against that order, Smt. Tulsa and another have come up in special appeal.;


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