- (1.) D. P. Mohapatra, C J. Pursuant to the order passed on 3-4-1995 by a Division Bench (B. K. Roy and R. R. K. Trivedi, JJ), referring the case for decision by a Full Bench this case has been listed before us.
(2.) INITIALLY the case was listed before a single Judge of this Court (B. K. Roy, J. ). The question referred by the Single Judge to the Division Bench was formulated as under: "whether it is open for the consolidation authorities to review/recall their final orders exer cising inherent powers even though the U. R Con solidation of Holdings Act, 1953 does not vest them any review jurisdiction?. " The Division Bench, on consideration of the question, was of the view that the point should be decided by a Full Bench since there are some decisions of Division Benches of this Court tailing the view that the consolidation authorities could review the final orders passed by them in exercise of inherent powers. The Division Bench seized of this case referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 S. C. 436-Laxman Purshottam Pimputkar v. The State of Bombay and others, AIR 1960 S. C. 641- Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh and others) and AI. R. 1965 S. C. 1457-Patel Chumbhai Dajibhai v. Narayanarao Khanderao Janbekar and also the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Lachmana alias Hubraja v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U. P. Lucknow and others, (1966) R. D. 419, and some other decisions and felt that the matter should be decided by a Full Bench as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Verma v. State of M. P, (1995) 2 SCC 129; hence the order dated 3-4- 1995. The factual back drop of the case leading to the present proceeding, same un necessary details, may be stated thus; Respondents 3 to 7 filed an application for mutation of their names in respect of Chak No. 55 of village Semri, Taluka Purwa, Per-gana Arail, district Allahabad on the ground that respondent No. 8, Khilari son of Gaya Din has executed sale-deeds in their favour transferring his share in the chak. The writ petitioners raised objection to the said ap plication on several grounds including the absence of permission from the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) (respondent No. 2) before execution of the sale deeds and that there was statutory bar against execution of the sale deeds. The Consolidation Officer, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, rejected the application for mutation filed by respondents 3 to 7. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respon dents 3 to 7 filed an appeal before the Settle ment Officer (Consolidation), who by his order dated 31-1- 1978 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer. The petitioners filed a revision peti tion before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad (respondent No. 1), who by his order dated 12-11-1979 allowed the revision. Thereafter, the contesting respon dents filed an application for review of the order. The petitioner filed objections against the review petition, inter alia, on the ground that the consolidation authorities have no power to review their order and, therefore the application for review is not maintainable. However, the Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation (respondent No. 1) by his order dated 15-2-1980 overruled the ob jection against maintainability of the review petition allowed the review petition and reversed his previous order. The said order is under challenge in the present writ peti tion. On the factual matrix of the case dis cussed above, by question quoted earlier arises for determination. Concededly there is no specific provision in the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act) vesting power of review in the consolidation authorities, par ticularly the Deputy Director of Consolida tion, with whose power we are concerned in the present proceeding. Therefore, a con tention has been raised that the consolida tion authorities while discharging quasi judicial functions as Courts or Tribunals have inherent power to review their orders. At the outset it would be convenient to refer to some of the statutory provisions relevant for determination of the issue raised. Chapter II of the Consolidation Act contains provisions relating to revision and correction of maps and records. Section 9-A makes provision regarding disposal of cases relating to claims to land and partition of joint holdings. In sub-section (1) of the said section the Assistant Consolidation Officer is vested with power to settle the disputes, correct the mistakes and effect partition as far as may be by conciliation between the parties appearing before him and pass or ders on the basis of conciliation. In sub-sec tion (2) of the said Section it is laid down that all cases which are disposed of by the Assistant Consolidation officer under sub section (1) and all cases relating to valua tion of plots and all cases relating to valua tion of trees, wells or other improvement for calculating compensation therefore and its apportionments amongst co-owners, if there be more owners than one, shall be forwarded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer, who shall dispose of the same in the manner Prescribed. In sub- section (3) of Section -A it is laid down that the Assistant Con solidation Officer, while acting under sub section (1) and the Consolidation Officer, while acting under sub-section (2), shall be deemed to be a court of competent jurisdic tion, anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force notwithstanding.
(3.) SECTION 11, which makes provision for appeals by any part to the proceeding under SECTION 9-A, who is aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Consolidation Of ficer or the Consolidation Officer, and such and appeal is to be filed before the Settle ment Officer (Consolidation) within 21 days of the date of the order and the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) shall be final and not be questioned in any court of law. In sub-section (2) of SECTION 11 it is laid down that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), hearing an appeal under sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be a court of competent jurisdiction, anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force notwithstanding. Chapter III of the Consolidation Act contains provisions relating to the prepara tion of the consolidation scheme. Section 21, which comes in the said Chapter, deals with the disposal of objections to the provisional consolidation scheme. Under the provisions therein, all objections received by the Assistant Consolidation Of ficer shall, as soon as may be, after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed therefore, be submitted by him to the Consolida tion Officer, who shall dispose of the same, as also the objections received by him, in the manner hereinafter provided, after notice to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee. Any person aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer may, within 15 days of the date of the order, file an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Con solidation) whose decision shall, except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, be final. Sub- section (3) of the said Section vests power in the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to make local inspection of the plots in dispute after notice to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee. Sub-sec tion (4) of the Section vests power in the Consolidation Officer to revise the provisional consolidation scheme after giving opportunity of being heard to the tenure holders concerned, or to remand the same to the Assistant Consolidation Of ficer, with such direction as the Consolida tion Officer may consider necessary; the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is similarly vested with power to revise the provisional consolidation scheme after giving opportunity of being heard to the tenure-holders concerned or to remand the same to the Assistant Consolidation Of ficer, or the Consolidation Officer, as he may think fit, with such direction as he may consider necessary.;