PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL,J. - (1.) This is a reference to the Full Bench made at the instance of a learned Single Judge, who found contradictory views expressed in some of the decisions of this Court. The question for determination is thus stated in the referring order: "Whether the territorial jurisdiction to entertain/decide appeal or revision, against the order passed on the objection or appeal transferred outside the district will be at the transferred district or at the district where the subject matter of dispute/unit situates?"
(2.) The learned Single Judge found that there are two sets of opinion, which in his view were contradictory. The first set of the judgments are; Darbari Lal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1989 RD 304, Ram Das Rai Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others , 1994 RD 62, and Yadram and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2013 (120) RD 429. The other set of judgments, which were found contradictory by the learned Single Judge, are; Parshuram Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and others, 2006 (100) RD 746, and Haider Ali Vs. State of U.P. through Consolidation Commissioner and others, 2012 (115) RD 695. The question that calls for determination is as to whether a revision under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the Act) would lie before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in whose jurisdiction holding (Unit) situates or before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in whose district the appeal was transferred. Answer to the question is clearly discernible from the plain language of Section 48 of the Act read with Rule 111 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (for short the Rules). Before we advert to the question, we may briefly set out the facts in the background. An objection under sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act was filed before the Consolidation Officer, Saharanpur-II. Both the parties were resident of the same village i.e. Gram Nanauta, Pargana Rampur, Tehsil Deoband, district Saharanpur. The Consolidation Officer decided the objection after furnishing opportunity to both the parties.
(3.) Dissatisfied with the order of the Consolidation Officer three separate appeals, being Appeal No. 501 (Mohd.Isha Vs. Jakira Begum and others), Appeal No.502 (Shabbar Husain Vs. Jakiya Begum and others) and Appeal No. 503 (Mohd. Isha Vs. Mohd. Shama and others), were preferred before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Saharanpur. One of the parties preferred Writ Petition No. 45463 of 2006 for the transfer of appeals to some other district. This Court vide order dated 04.09.2006 transferred the appeals to Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar. On 22.05.2008 the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar allowed the appeals and quashed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Saharanpur. Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar two separate revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar. One of the respondents in the revision, Shabbar Husain, filed an objection before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar does not have jurisdiction because the holding/unit is situated in district Saharanpur, therefore, the revision would lie before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur and not in district Muzaffarnagar. The said objection of Shabbar Husain was rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar on 29.09.2014. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar dated 29.09.2014 was challenged by Shabbar Husain by filing a writ petition (Writ Petition No.6303 of 2015) before this Court. The parties relied on the judgments referred above. The learned Single Judge found that there are conflicting opinions on the point by this Court, hence, he has referred this matter to the Full Bench vide order dated 03.07.2015. We have heard Sri Ramesh Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General, Sri Manu Ghildyal, learned Standing Counsel, Sri Santosh Srivastava and Mrs. Karuna Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. ;