ROHAN SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution the judgment and order of the Joint-Director, Consolidation, dated 10th January, 1978, has been challenged.

(2.) Chaks were allotted to the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2. When the statement of proposals was prepared, the Petitioner filed an objection to the effect that the chaks, provisionally allotted to him, were not correctly allotted and he be given another chak. An objection was also filed by Respondent No. 2 that the chak provisionally allotted to him be changed. It is the Petitioner's case that before the Consolidation Officer, the parties entered into a written ' compromise, to the effect that they have adjusted their own chaks and the Consolidation Officer be pleased to allot to them the chaks in accordance with the agreement. The written compromise, dated 24th February, 1976, was duly verified by the Consolidation Officer and was witnessed. The Consolidation Officer by his order of the same date accepted the compromise and directed allotment accordingly. Later, one Shyama, son of the Respondent No. 2, preferred an appeal. This appeal was heard by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who dismissed the same on the ground that Shyama had no locus-standi to file the appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 20th March, 1976. Again after lapse of time, another appeal was preferred by the Respondent No. 2 himself before the same Settlement Officer, Consolidation. This appeal was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, by his order dated 7th June, 1976. He held that the appeal was time-barred. He also decided the matter on merits and held that no fraud was ever played while arriving at the compromise and the compromise was arrived at by the free-will of the parties. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, further found that no evidence, whatsoever, had been adduced by the Respondent No. 2 on the basis of which it could be held that any fraud was played upon him. Revision against this order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, was preferred under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who allowed the same by the impugned order dated 10th January, 1978.

(3.) Sri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition. He Las urged that the Joint-Director, Consolidation, who had decided the revision, and had passed the impugned order was necessary party to this petition, and, in his absence, the writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed on this score. In view of this objection, having taken by Sri Paul, learned counsel for the Petitioner Sri G.N. Verma, as a matter of abundant caution, filed an application praying for the impleadment of the Joint-Director of Consolidation as a Respondent to this petition. A prayer in the alternative has been made that a correction be permitted to be made in the petition to the effect that, instead of words "Deputy Director", the words "Joint-Director" be substituted. A counter-affidavit to this application has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. In my opinion, this preliminary objection has no merit. A revision was filed before the Dy. Director of Consolidation. It came up for hearing before the Joint-Director of Consolidation. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act defines "Director of Consolidation" as also including "Additional Director of Consolidation" and a "Joint-Director of Consolidation". Sub-section (4)(A) defines the Dy. Director of Consolidation as meaning a person appointed as such by the State Government to exercise such powers and perform such duties of the Director of Consolidation as may be delegated to him by the State Government. Both these provisions, therefore, enable the Dy. Director of Consolidation as also Joint-Director of Consolidation to also perform the duties of the Director of Consolidation under the Act. Though, it is correct that the decision impugned in the present writ petition is that of the Joint-Director of Consolidation but, at the same time, the present is not a case where there is complete absence of the revisional authority being impleaded as a Respondent to the petition. In the context of the provisions referred to above and the fact that the Dy. Director has actually been impleaded, it cannot, in my opinion, be said that the case of the Petitioner that it was only by reason of an accidental mistake that the name of the Dy. Director of Consolidation was impleaded in place of Joint-Director, has no substance. Accordingly, necessary correction has been permitted by me to be made in the petition.