PREM CHANDRA AND ANOTHER Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BARA BANKI, AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1965-12-35
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (FROM: LUCKNOW)
Decided on December 22,1965

PREM CHANDRA Appellant
VERSUS
Dy. Director of Consolidation, Bara Banki Respondents

JUDGEMENT

DESAI, C.J. - (1.)IN this petition our brothers Beg and Sharma have referred to a larger Bench the following questions :
"1(a). On the facts and circumstances of the case was a revision against the order of the Deputy Director dated 22-3-1963 maintain able in the present case? (b) If so, would such a revision he governed by amended Section 48 or Section 48 as it stood prior to its amendment by Act VIII of 1963?

(2.)ON the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Deputy Director, Bara Banki competent to hear a revision petition against the order of the Deputy Director Camp Bara Banki dated 22-3-1963, passed in the second appeal by the latter ?
Is the order of the Deputy Director Bara Banki dated 14-6-1963 depositing the aforesaid revision a legally correct order ? Similar questions have been referred in the associated petitions. The material facts in this petition are as follows : An order under S. 10 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was passed by a Consolidation Officer on 17-10-1962. Under section 11(1) an appeal lay from an order passed under S. 10 to a Settlement Officer and such an appeal was filed and was decided by a Settlement Officer on 21-12-1962. Under section 11(2) as it stood prior to the amendment in S. 11 by Act No. 8 of 1963 which came into force on 8-3-1963 a second appeal lay from a Settlement Officers order to a Deputy Director and a second appeal was filed prior to 8-3-1963 and was decided by him on 22-3-1963. Section 48 also was amended by Act No. 8 of 1963 : prior to its amendment the Director had the power to revise a Deputy Directors order on a ground similar to a ground on which a High Court can revise an order of a subordinate civil Court under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and since the amendment the Director has the power to revise an order of any "subordinate authority" on the ground that it is incorrect, illegal or improper Section 48 as it existed prior to its amendment on 8-3-1963 will be referred to as "the old section" or "the unamended section" and the section as it stands now, as "the new section" or "the amended section." The petitioner, who felt aggrieved by the Deputy Directors order dated 22-3-1963 filed an application for revision of it to the District Deputy Director on whom the Directors powers have been conferred. A Deputy Director, also exercising the Directors powers, rejected the petition on 14-6-1963 on the ground that it was not maintainable under the amended section 48 because a Deputy Director is not an authority subordinate to the Director under the amended section. The prayer sought in this petition is for certiorari quashing the order of the Deputy Director dated 14-6-1963 and the earlier orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer and any other writ direction or order that may be necessary. 2. The material facts in Writ Petition No. 338 of 1963 are these. A statement of proposals prepared under S. 21 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was confirmed under section 23 on 30-3-1961. An objection could be filed under section 21 against it but no objection had been filed by opposite-party No. 1. The confirmation of the statement was followed by delivery of possession to the tenure-holders of the land given in their chaks. Thereafter on 12-5-1962 the opposite-party filed an objection against the land given in his chak before a Settlement Officer, who on 19-2-1963 forwarded it to a Deputy Director under section 21 (6). Section 21 was another section that was amended by Act No. 8 of 1963 with effect from 8-3-1963. Under the old section an appeal lay from an order on an objection filed against a statement of proposals to a settlement Officer and a second appeal lay from the Settlement Officers order to a Deputy Director and the Deputy Director was authorized by sub-section (6) also to revise an order of a Consolidation Officer or Settlement Officer in the interest of justice suo motu. While the matter was pending before the Deputy Director S. 21 was amended by Act No. 8 of 1963 and sub-section (6) was deleted. The Deputy Director on 23-3-1963 decided the matter in the opposite partys favour by altering the land given in his chak. The petitioner aggrieved by his order applied to the Director to revise it under S. 48 and on 15-5-1963 the Joint Director dismissed it on the ground that it was not maintainable under the amended section (presumably because in his opinion a Deputy Director is not an authority subordinate to the Director now). The petitioner now seeks certiorari for the quashing of the orders of the Joint Director and the Deputy Director and any other order that may be considered necessary. 3. The material facts in Writ Petition No. 385 of 1963 are these. An objection under S. 21 was dismissed by a Consolidation Officer and an appeal from his order was dismissed by a Settlement Officer on 25-9-1962. A second appeal from the Settlement Officers order was dismissed by a Deputy Director on 25-2-1963. After 7-3-1963 a revision application was filed by the petitioners against the Deputy Directors order before the Joint Director, who on 2-5-1963 rejected it as "infructuous" (presumably because he thought that the Deputy Director was not an authority subordinate to him within the meaning of the new S. 48). The petitioners now seek certiorari for the quashing of the orders of the Joint Director and the other consolidation authorities and for any other writ or direction that may be necessary. The petitioners have not joined any tenure-holders as opposite parties to the petition, the only opposite-parties being the State of U. P. and the Consolidation authorities. But only the State was a party to the revision application as also to the first appeal and the second appeal. No tenure-holder was an opposite party to the revision application or a respondent to either of the two appeals. There is, therefore, no defect in the petition.

(3.)THE material facts in Writ Petition No. 483 of 1963 are these. The proceeding before the consolidation authorities was under S. 12. A second appeal from an order of a Settlement Officer was filed on 11-2-1963 before a Deputy Director who on 23-3-1963 dismissed it. The petitioner filed a revision application before the Director on 15-4-1963 and the Joint Director dismissed it on 13-5-1963 on the ground that it was not maintainable under the amended S. 48. The petitioner has now applied for certiorari for the quashing of the orders of the Joint Director and other authorities and such other writ or direction as may be necessary.
;


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