- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 4-4-88 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (D. D. C.), Gorakhpur, (Annexure V to the petition) and further to quash the judgment and order dated 25-1-85 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Sadar Rustampur, Gorakhpur, (Annexure II to the petition ).
(2.) NOW the parties are agreed that the D. D. C. Gorakhpur had passed an order dated 25-4-72 in revision no. 90, under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Village Bhitaha, Pargana Bhauapar. This order has not been implemented by the lower courts. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners had moved the respective courts, the last court being the Court of D. D. C. , Gorakhpur. The learned D. D. C. as failed to appreciate the contention of the petitioners mainly on the ground that the publication under Section 52 of the aforesaid Act had taken place and on that date, there was no application pending with the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities. Therefore, under the provisions of Rule 109-A of the aforesaid Rules, the petition of the petitioners could not be entertained. ,my attention has been invited to a ruling of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mukhtar v. D. D. C. , Azamgarh 1993 R. D. 457. In paragarph 12 of the judgment, the following observations have been made:- ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hereunder the Act the duty is enjoined on the Consolidation Authorities themselves to implement the orders which have been passed under the Act and no duty is cast on the person in whose favour the decision has been given to make an application to the authorities under the Act for implementation of that order, within any prescribed period of limitation. "
(3.) BOTH the courts have committed a manifest error of law by holding that they have no jurisdiction to implement the order of the D. D. C. after the publication under Section 52 of the C. H. Act had taken place. This view of the D. D. C. and others is wrong and their order deserve to be quashed. The petition is allowed. The order passed by the D. D. C. Gorakhpur, dated 4-4-88 (Annexure V) and the order dated 25-1-85, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Sadar Rustampur (Annexure II) are quashed. The matter is sent back to the Consolidation Authorities, Sadar Rustampur, Gorakhpur to pass suitable orders for implementing the order dated 25-1-85 passed by the D. D. C. , Gorakhpur aforesaid after hearing the parties. Cost easy. Petition allowed .;