MEWA LAL Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-

(2.) AGAINST basic year entry, in favour of petitioners recording them as sirdar, an objection was filed by Gaon Sabha on 16th May 1971, under section 9 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, and it was claimed that land being tank the name of petitioner should be expunged and it should be entered in name of Gaon Sabha. The objection was contested by petitioners and it was alleged that plots in dispute were let out to petitioners in 1935 by the zamindar by a registered lease deed dated 30th August 1936 and as petitioners are in possession since then they acquired occupancy rights and the land in dispute was not such which could vest in State or in Gaon Sabha on the date when zamindari was abolished. On 16th August 71 the objection was allowed against which petitioners filed an appeal. It was held by Settlement Officer Consolidation that the land was used for growing Singhara and as this land was let out to petitioners by a registered instrument it was enforceable under sub-section (5) of Section 17 of Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 and therefore the petitioner was occupancy tenant and he acquired rights of sirdar under section 19 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act I of 1951. This order was challenged in revision and it was heard by Sri Ram Mohan Singh, Deputy Director on 7th March 1972. It appears Gaon Sabha became apprehensive that decision by Deputy Director is likely to go against it therefore it filed an application for transfer before District Deputy Consolidation which was heard and decided by Sri M. S. Sand, Additional Collector who was at that time officiating as Collector Allahabad. He appears to have called for report from Sri Ram Mohan Singh which ran as under :

(3.) THE absence of any provision in the Act or rules for transferring a revision being heard by a Deputy Director is based on salutary principle that he being the highest authority under the Act to adjudicate dispute between parties cannot be subjected to supervisory control of District Deputy Director. While exercising revisional power a Deputy Director is not subordinate to District Deputy Director notwithtanding his administrative powers and duty of maintaining record of rights etc. It is further clear from sub-sec. (4-A) of Sec. 3, which defines Deputy Director as including a District Deputy Director, that he exercises concurrent power. Under rules a revision is instituted before District Deputy Director and by virtue of sub-Rule 1-A to Rule 65 it can be transferred to another Deputy Director or recalled to own file but that does not make a Deputy Director subordinate to District Deputy Director. An officer exercising concurrent power cannot transfer a case pending before another officer on ground of bias etc. Sri Sand therefore had no jurisdiction to hear transfer application in respect of revision which was not only pending before Sri Singh but it had been heard, judgment dictated, signed and locked.