SHER MOHAMMAD AND OTHERS Vs. DY. DIR. OF CONSOLIDATION, U.P., LUCKNOW CAMP AT GOLA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners preferred six objections under Sec. 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act which were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by a common judgment. They then preferred six appeals which were also dismissed by a common judgment. Thereafter they preferred six revisions. They filed copies of the orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) along with the memo of revision in one case only and the other five revisions were filed without any such copies. When the matter came up for hearing before the Deputy Director an objection was taken on behalf of the opposite parties that the five revisions, which have filed without the copies of the orders of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which should have been filed as required by rule 111 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, were incompetent. It was further urged that since the decision became final in five cases the same operated as res judicata in the sixth case in which the revision was competent. The Deputy Director upheld the aforesaid objection and dismissed five revisions as incompetent and the sixth one on the ground that the decision in the other five cases operated as res judicata in the sixth. It has been found by the Deputy Director that whereas the five revisions were presented on Dec. 13, 1965 applications for copies of the orders of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and Consolidation Officer respectively were made on Dec. 18, 1965 and Dec. 19, 1965. It is in these circumstances that the present petition is filed with the prayer that the order of the Deputy Director dated Feb. 23, 1966, six copies of which have been filed along with the petition as annexures 1 to 6, be quashed. It is further prayed that a Writ of mandamus may issue directing the Deputy Director to decide the matter on merits.

(2.) The petition is opposed by opposite party No. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the view taken by the Deputy Director that the decision in the five cases, revisions from which were rejected incompetent, operated as res judicata in the sixth revision, is erroneous. In support of the contention learned counsel places reliance on the case of Shanker Sahai Vs. Bhagwat Sahai, A.I.R. 1946 Oudh 33 . The general proposition laid down in that Full Bench case no doubt appears to support the contention but a scrutiny of the judgment shows that while indicating the exceptions to the general rule propounded by the Full Bench, the Honourable Judges deciding the case almost expressed themselves quite contrary to the general proposition laid down earlier. That it is so will appear from the following observations:-

(3.) The other contention raised by the learned counsel is that since under Sec. 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the Deputy Director had suo motu power to revise the decision of subordinate consolidation authorities, he should have exercised the same in the instant case in which the revisions had been admitted and notices had been issued to the opposite parties. In support of this contention he places reliance in the case of Jagan Vs. Ram Kishore Pandey, 1954 A.L.J. 10 . What is said in this connection on page 12 of the report is as below:-