K.N. Goyal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings and came for hearing before a learned Single Judge who has referred certain questions for consideration by larger Bench. It is thus that this petition has come up before its.
(2.) THE dispute relates to the Khalas, one being Khata No. 199 which was originally recorded in the name of Smt. Maktoola widow of Satya Narain, and the other, namely, Khata No. 100 which was recorded in the name of Smt. Singari who was widow of a predeceased son of Satya Narain. During the pendency of consolidation proceedings Smt. Maktoola died. Thereupon her daughter Smt. Teji and the aforesaid Suit. Singari came lo be rival Applicants for substitution as her legal representatives. The case of Smt. Teji was that Smt. Singari had remarried, and as such he had no claim over either of the two Khatas and that the said Khatas should devolve on Smt. Teji herself. Smt. Singari proposed lo sell the entire Chak No. 213 which was prepared in lieu of the aforesaid Khatas 199 and 200. Under Section 5(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act while consolidation proceedings are pending no land which is the subject mailer of these proceedings can be transferred without the permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation (for short, S.O.C.). Accordingly, Smt. Singari made an application on March 4, 1978 to the S.O.C. for permission lo transfer the land. This application was first given before the Chafes were carved out and therefore a fresh application was given after the Chak were carved out, Smt. Teji objected to these applications. The S.O.C. Tanda held that as the title dispute between Smt. Teji and Smt. Singari was still pending no permission should be granted at that stage. He accordingly deferred decision on the application. This order is dated April 22, 1978 An.nexure -1. Smt. Singari filed a revision before the Dy. Director against this order. Deputy Director held that the question of permission was to be decided independently of the title dispute. Any order passed on the application for permission could not affect the title dispute. He accordingly directed that the S.O.C. should consider the matter on merits without being influenced by the pendency of the tide dispute. He further look the view that as the S.O.C. Tanda had already expressed a certain view it would be desirable that the case be heard by a different S.O.C. He accordingly directed that after remand the case shall be heard by the S.O.C, Akbarpur. When the matter came up before the S.O.C. Akbarpur an objection was raised on behalf of Smt. Teji that the Deputy Director had no power lo transfer the case from S.O.C. Tanda to S.O.C. Akbarpur. The S.O.C. however took the view that he could not go into the validity of the order of the Deputy Director as he (S.O.C.) was an inferior Tribunal he was be and to comply with the directions of the Deputy Director and to deal with the case. He however granted time lo Smt. Teji lo obtain stay order, if any, from a higher Tribunal or court, but inspite of three dates of hearing given for that purpose no stay order was produced. Accordingly, he decided the case and granted permission for sale subject to two conditions, namely, that the sale may be made if Section 1.68 of U.P. Act No. I of 1951 permitted such sale, and secondly if Smt. Singari lost 1 he title case, the permission would be rendered infructuous. In pursuance of this order of permission dated August 21, 1978 Sml. Singari transferred the Chak in favour of opposite parties 3 to 5 some three days later. Smt. Teji filed a revision against the order of permission before the Deputy Director. During the pendency of this revision Smt. Singari died. Smt. Teji got her son Chandra Brian opposite party No. 6 substituted as legal representative in place of Sml. Singari. Nothing was said about the fact that Smt. Singari had already executed a sale -deed in favour of opposite parties 3 to 5 Chandra Brian's name having been so substituted, both parties, namely, mother and son, intimated the Depuf Director that Chandra Bhan as legal representative of Smt. Singari did not wish to pursue the application for permission to sell the land. As such on the basis of the compromise between them the order dated August 21, 1978 was set aside and the revision was allowed on February 12, 1980, vide order Annexure -4. Opposite parties 3 to 5 later made an application before the Deputy Director contending that they had no knowledge of the revision or of the substitution proceedings and that any order passed on the basis of compromise between mother and son to which they (opposite parties 3 to 5) were not parties could not bind the latter. As the order dated February 12, 1980 was ex -parte in so far as opposite parties 3 to 5 were concerned, they prayed that they may be brought on record and the earlier order dated February 12, 1980 be recalled and the revision be decided afresh after hearing them. This application of opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 was allowed on March 25, 1980 vide Annexure -5. Thereafter the matter was heard between Smt. Teji Petitioner, and opposite parties 3 to 5. After hearing the parties the Deputy Director dismissed the revision and upheld the order of the S.O.C. This order of the Deputy Director is dated March 21, 1980 Annexure -6. It is against the said order of the S.O.C. Akbarpur and the order dated March 25, 1980 and March 31, 1980 passed by the Deputy Director and so the writ petition was filed.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge has referred the following questions to this Bench: 1. Whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation while hearing the revision application under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can exercise the powers conferred upon the Director of Consolidation under Rule 65(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, for sending back the case to another Settlement Officer Consolidation before whom neither the case was pending nor was taken cognizance of at any stage? 2. Whether a person who has not moved a substitution application as assignee or transferee was not a party to the case at any stage can file an application for setting aside the order passed on the basis of compromise purporting to be under Section 201 of U.P. Land Revenue Act on the ground that it was an ex -parte order. 3. Whether permission to transfer holding can be granted to a person whose rights as a tenure -holder are under jeopardy and the question of title is still pending before the appellate court in respect of a part of holding?;