RAM GOPAL Vs. BADRI PRASAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge of this Court allowing a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the Respondents, Badri Prasad and Jageshwar.

(2.) THE land in dispute was recorded in the revenue records in the name of the Gram Samaj. On the commencement of proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act an objection was filed by the Appellant contending that he was sirdar of the land. Another objection was filed by the Respondents Badri Prasad and Jageshwar claiming that they were sirdars and not the Appellant. The Consolidation Officer upheld the objection of Badri Prasad and Jageshwar and rejected that of the Appellant. An appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. On the appeal filed by Badri Prasad and Jageshwar he held that the land continued to be vested in the Land Management Committee and Badri Prasad was a trespasser of the land in dispute. The claim of Badri Prasad that he was sirdar was rejected. Thereafter, both the Appellant and the Respondent Jageshwar filed second appeals before the Assistant Director of Consolidation. The Assistant Director, Consolidation dismissed the appeals by his order dated 12 -2 -1962. Then the Appellant filed a revision application before the Director of Consolidation. The revision application was allowed by an order dated 21 -2 -1963 by the Joint Director, Consolidation. The Joint Director, Consolidation, held that the Appellant was sirdar of the disputed plots and the Gram Samaj had no title therein. During the course of revision application an application was made by Badri Prasad and Jageshwar praying that they be declared sirdars. That application was rejected on the ground that they had not filed a revision application and had also not been able to point out any jurisdictional error in the order of the Assistant Director. The decision is included in the order of 21 -2 -1963 made by the Joint Director on the revision application filed by the Appellant. Against the order of the joint Director the Respondents Badri Prasad and Jageshwar filed a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. That petition has been allowed and this special appeal has now been preferred against that judgment and order.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant contends that the learned single Judge is in error in so far as he has required an investigation of the question of possession again and it is said, there was no need to remand the case for an investigation into that question. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and we are of opinion that learned Counsel is right in his submission. It is, necessary, we think, to consider the proceedings with reference to the stage when the second appeals were decided by the Assistant Director, Consolidation. It is at that stage that the final findings of fact are contemplated under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act and for the purpose of ascertaining what was the position taken finally in respect of questions of fact we must necessarily advert to the order of the Assistant Director. There is also the consideration that no revision application was filed by Badri Prasad and Jageshwar against the order of the Assistant Director and consequently the findings rendered by that authority against Badri Prasad and Jageshwar became final. It is true that an application was made by those Respondents before the Joint Director but that application was made in a pending revision application filed by the Appellant and not as an independent proceeding. The application was rejected by the Joint Director on grounds with which we find ourselves in agreement.