Ashok Bhushan - (1.) -Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.7.2007, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the objection raised by the petitioners regarding maintainability of the revisions filed by the respondent No. 2 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the order dated 18.10.2007 by which the application to recall the order dated 27.7.2007 has also been rejected. Brief facts necessary for deciding the issues raised in the writ petition are : the Consolidation Officer passed an order under Rule 109 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed by the respondents which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. In the revision, objection was raised by the petitioners that revision is not maintainable under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 27.7.2007 overruled the objection and held the revision maintainable. Again the petitioner moved an application for recall of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation taking the ground that during the arguments reliance had been placed on Rule 109 (3) by which the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had been made final hence, the revision did not lay but the said argument had not been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the application by order dated 18.10.2007 holding that earlier order having been passed after hearing the parties, deciding the issue of maintainability of revision, the same cannot be permitted to be raised again. This writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has been given finality under Rule 109 (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 hence, the revision under Section 48 of the Act is barred. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai, AIR 1973 SC 203 ; M/s. Jetha Bai and sons, New Town Cochin etc. etc. v. M/s. Sunderdal Rathemal etc. etc., (1988) 1 SCJ 598 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. M/s. Super Cotton Bowl Refilling Works, AIR 1989 SC 922.
(3.) SRI Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents refuting the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 48 of the Act is wide enough to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order or of any case decided by subordinate authority hence, the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation under Rule 109 is also subject to such scrutiny. He further submits that the power of Section 48 of the Act cannot be whittled down by the provision of Rule 109 (3). Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondent on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shah Chaturbhuj v. Shah Mauji Ram, AIR 1938 All 456 ; Smt. Devi v. Board of Revenue, U. P. at Allahabad, 1972 RD 228 and Ram Pujan and others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and others, 2000 (91) RD 43 : 2000 (3) AWC 1950. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.;