HARPAL SINGH Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this petition is whether the Deputy Director Consolidation could in revision filed by Petitioner modify the appellate order to Petitioners prejudice. Admittedly one Pran Singh had three sons Ram Bilas, Narain and Niadar. After publication of CH Form, Narain and sons of Niadar who are opposite parties, filed objection under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and claimed that, each son of Pran Singh had one third share in khata No. 152. The Petitioner contested and claimed that both Petitioner and opposite parties had one third in Khata No. 67 and 152. The opposite parties were given khata No. 67 and to compensate Petitioner for his one third share in this khata he was given khata No. 152 (except plot No. 499/1, 500 B and 714), This was accepted by Consolidation Officer but the Settlement Officer Consolidation modified the order and directed that Petitioner was co-tenant of two third only. Against this order both Petitioner and Narain Singh filed revision. The Petitioner claimed entire Khata whereas Narain Singh claimed that Petitioner had one third share only. The revisions of Narain Singh were dismissed as barred by time and the order became final. The Deputy Director while deciding Petitioners revision, however, directed that he should be given one third only in khata No. 152. It is against this direction that Petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) From the facts stated above it is apparent that the scope of two revisions was entirely different. In Petitioners revision the only question was whether Petitioner was entitled to entire khata or the two third given to him by appellate authority was correct. It did not extend to reduction of share which was already allotted to him by appellate authority. The Deputy Director could either accept his claim and enhance his share or dismiss the revision and maintain the order. He could not put Petitioner in a worse position than what he would have been if he had not invoked the revisional jurisdiction under Section 48. Once the revision of opposite party was dismissed the finding of appellate authority that Petitioner was co-tenant of two third in khata No. 152 attained finality which could not be disturbed.

(3.) In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by Deputy Director is quashed. The Petitioner shall be entitled to refund of the amount deposited in pursuance of the interim order dated 29th November 76 passed by this court. The parties shall bear their own costs.