Allahabad High CourtRam Naresh vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 16 November, 2018Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 ALL 4796Author:Devendra Kumar UpadhyayaBench:Devendra Kumar UpadhyayaHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 31058 of 2018
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Naresh
 
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Pratapgarh And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Sinha,Mayank Sinha
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Trinetra Shankar Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Radhey Shyam Tiwari, holding brief of Sri Trinetra Shanker Pandey, learned counsel representing the respondent nos.3 and 4.Sri Rudra Mani Shukla, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos.5, 6 and 7, has also been heard.Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.5 to 7 filed today is taken on record.With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself.Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner and the respondent nos.5,6 and 7 challenging the order dated 14.08.2017 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been dismissed primarily on the ground that since there were four chak holders, as such four revision petitions ought to have been preferred and accordingly joint revision petition filed by the petitioner and the respondent nos.5 to 7 was not maintainable.										On one hand, the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order has rejected the revision petition on the aforesaid technical ground and on the other, he has cursorily and in a most summary manner given some finding on the merit of the claims of the respective parties.The Deputy Director of Consolidation in support of the ground taken by him for dismissal of the revision petition has attempted to take aid of provisions ofSection 21 (2)of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act'), which, in fact, are applicable for filing of objections by the respective chak holders, in case they are aggrieved by the chaks proposed to them at the stage of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The provisions ofSection 21 (2)of the Act are, in fact, applicable in case of filing objections against the chaks proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and there is a rationale behind requiring separate objections to be filed and to be entered in misilband register separately. The application ofSection 21 (2)of the Act cannot, in my considered opinion, be stretched to be applied to the proceedings underSection 48of the Act.As has been laid down by this Court on several occasions, the Deputy Director of Consolidation should not dismiss the revision petitions on technicalities; rather he should tilt himself towards examining the record on merit and pass appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice.  In fact the provisions ofSection 48 (1)of the Act are couched in such a language which confers a power or jurisdiction on the Deputy Director of Consolidation and for exercise of such power an application need not necessarily be made.  The jurisdiction vested in the Deputy Director of Consolidation is akin to revisional jurisdiction.It is well settled that the purpose of providing revisional jurisdiction in a court is primarily to exercise supervision on the subordinate courts/tribunals and to correct the mistakes which may be committed by the subordinate courts in the course of discharge of their judicial functions.  The revisional jurisdiction, in fact, is called corrective jurisdiction and is normally the preserve of the superior courts.This Court in the case of Bharat Singh (dead) through LRS. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation (Camp at Saharanpur) and others, reported in 2004 (97) RD 522 has relied upon certain observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Zunaid vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, reported in 1972 ALJ 435. The observations made in the case of Abdul Zunaid (supra), which have been quoted in the case of Bharat Singh (supra) are extracted hereinbelow:-"Section 48does not confer any right on a party to file an application in revision: It confers a power on the specified authority for the sake of keeping the inferior authorities within bounds.  For that purpose he may call for the record of an inferior authority and examine it and pass an appropriate order.  Having regard to the object under lyingsection 48, it appears to us that once the record has been called for by the specified authority, he should not ordinarily refuse to examine the record and to check whether the inferior authority has gone wrong.  So long as the record has not been called for, a person who makes an application underSection 48may be said to be an actor on the scene. But when the record has been called for it appears to us that he ceases to be an actor on the scene. The specified authority who has called for the record becomes the actor on the scene. Accordingly, he should examine the record and pass such an order which will advance justice."With the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos.5,6 and 7, four separate objections filed by the petitioner and the respondent nos.5,6 and 7 before the Consolidation Officer underSection 20 (1)of the Act have been annexed. Accordingly, it is not a case where common objection was filed by the petitioner and the respondent nos.5,6 and 7 before the Consolidation Officer which would have violated the principles embodied inSection 20 (2)of the Act. In the present case, four separate objections were filed by the chak holders, namely, petitioner and respondent nos. 5,6 and 7.In view of the law laid down by this Court in the cases of Bharat Singh (supra) and Abdul Zunaid (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the revision petition filed by the petitioner and the respondent nos.5,6 and 7 could not have been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on such a technicality.Yet another anomaly is noticeable in the impugned order. As observed above, the Deputy Director of Consolidation on one hand has dismissed the revision petition on the aforementioned technical ground and on the other hand he has also made certain observations on merit. However, the observations made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the claim of the revision applicants on merits are absolutely non speaking and cryptic. The appropriate course available before the Deputy Director of Consolidation was that if he was to decide the respective claims of the parties on merits, he ought to have weighed their respective cases on the basis of perusal of the record and the evidence available and then he could have given his own finding by passing a reasoned and speaking order.It is well settled that reasons are the soul of any judicial exercise or verdict.  In absence of reasons, if any decision is rendered, that too by a functionary who has to discharge the judicial functions, such a decision cannot be permitted to be sustained.For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh in Revision Petition No.149;Ram Naresh and others vs. Ram Bahadur and others, underSection 48of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as is contained in annexure no.2 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed.The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the revision petition afresh in view of the observation made hereinabove after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. The proceedings of the revision petition shall expedited and concluded within a maximum period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.There will be no order as to costs.Order Date :- 16.11.2018
 
Renu/-