CHOTKAUNU Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-1965-9-35
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 29,1965

Chotkaunu Appellant
VERSUS
Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.D. Sahgal, J. - (1.)THE Petitioner filed objection Under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood prior to the amendment by Act VIII of 1963. That objection was disposed of by the Consolidation Officer by an order dated the 24th of February, 1963 contained in Annexure 1. The Petitioner went up in appeal and the appeal was decided by the Additional Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on the 16th of March, 1963. The Petitioner was dissatisfied even by this order and he filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who decided the revision application against him on the 17th of August, 1963. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari for the quashing of the three orders. There is a prayer for a writ of mandamus also which need not be detailed at this stage.
A preliminary point has been raised in the case on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 12 and 13, that the writ petition should be dismissed because the Petitioner has not sought the alternative remedy available to him.

(2.)IN the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood prior to the amendment by Act VIII of 1963 there was a second appeal provided against the order of the (Additional) Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to the Deputy Director of Consolidation and from the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation a revision could be filed to the Director of Consolidation. The Petitioner thought that after the amendment of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act by Act VIII of 1963 which came into force on the 8th March, 1963, as the appeal by the Additional Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was decided on the 16th of March, 1963, the provision of the second appeal stood deleted and as such a revision application only was maintainable as provided under the amended provisions of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The contention on behalf of the opposite parties 12 and 13, however, is that even though the appeal by the Additional Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was decided on the 16th of March, 1963 it was a case to which the provisions of the unamended Act applied and a second appeal ought to have been filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Petitioner had, however, filed an application in revision. The Petitioner himself having filed an application in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, he cannot come and say that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation should be quashed on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The contention on behalf of the opposite parties 12 and 13, therefore, is that even though the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the revision may be without jurisdiction, it cannot be challenged by the Petitioner on that ground nor has it been challenged on that ground. The Petitioner ought to have filed a second appeal and as he has not filed a second appeal he has failed to avail of the alternative remedy open to him. The petition, therefore, should not be entertained and should be dismissed.

(3.)IN order to appreciate this argument, we have to take into consideration the provisions of Sub -section (1) of Section 47 of Act VIII of 1963 which reads as follows:
In units notified Under Section 4 of the principal Act, prior to the date on which this Act comes into force, hereinafter referred to as the said date, all work in regard to or connected with consolidation operations - -

(i) beyond the stage of publication of the Statement of Proposals Under Section 20 of the principal Act, where, on or before the said date, that statement had already been published; and

(ii) up to and inclusive of the stage of confirmation of the statement of Principles Under Section 18 of the Principal Act, where, on or before the said date, notices Under Section 9 of the principal Act had already issued;

shall be conducted and concluded in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act, as if this Act had not come into force:

Provided that, as respects second appeals and revisions, which lay under the provisions of the principal Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by this Act but had not been instituted before the said date, the principal Act, as amended by this Act, shall apply and be deemed always to have applied as if this Act had been in force on all material dates.

;


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