Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri V.S. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the peti tioners, learned Standing Counsel appear ing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Kunwar R.C. Singh, learned Coun sel appearing for the respondent No. 5.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut dated 1.12.1982 whereby revision died by Rameshwar Singh, re spondent No. 4 was allowed and after set ting aside the order of the Settlement Offi cer Consolidation dated 27.8.1982, the Deputy Director of Consolidation restored the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 31.1.1982. Before the Consolidation Officer the petitioners had filed objections that plot Nos. 465 and 488, which had been reserved for school, may be de-reserved and re corded in their name. According to the petitioners there was already existing a school in the village, which had sufficient open land for being used as playground for the children studying in the school. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objec tions of the petitioners vide order dated 31.1.1982. Against the same the petitioners filed recall application, which was also re jected by the Consolidation Officer on 2.3.1982. Aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Set tlement Officer Consolidation, who agreed with the contentions of the petitioners and after recording the finding that the reser vation of two plots for school was not warranted, allowed the appeal vide order dated 27.8.1982. Against the said order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ramesh-war Singh, who is alleged to be the then Pradhan of the village, in his personal ca pacity, filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The said revision has been allowed by the impugned order. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is two fold; firstly, that Rameshwar Singh, respondent No. 4 had no personal interest in the land in dispute and, therefore, the revision filed by him in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the Gaon Sabha without a valid resolution through the panel of lawyers, was not maintainable. The second submis sion in that the Deputy Director of Consoli dation did not examine the case on merits but allowed the revision only on the ground that the Consolidation Officer in his order dated 2.3.1982, rejecting the recall application had recorded that the petition ers had been heard before passing the or der dated 31.1.1982 and, therefore, accord ing to the Deputy Director of Consolidation the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 2.3.1982 did not require any interfer ence by the appellate authority. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners the Deputy Director of Consolidation erred while allowing the revision on technical grounds without considering the merits of the case.
(3.) I have also perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Secretary of the Land Management Committee wherein also the fact that there was no resolution of the Gaon Sabha/Land Management Committee to file the revision, has not been denied. Further, no personal Interest of the Pradhan had been shown. Having considered the submis sions made, this Court is of the view that the revision itself was not maintainable at the behest of Rameshwar Singh in his per sonal capacity. Without there being a valid resolution of the Gaon Sabha or the Land Management Committee, the revision could not have been filed by the Pradhan in individual capacity. Pradhan had no per son interest in the land in dispute. Further the Deputy Director of Consolidation, un der section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 had ample powers to decide the matter on merits. Once the entire record was before him, allowing the revi sion without considering the merits of the case, vitiates the order. The Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation had not considered the reasoning given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation while allowing the appeal and in, absence of having dealt with those findings, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained.;