PARAS Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GHAZIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri Ram Autar Singh Yadav, learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 1.

(2.) After the matter was heard at length, Sri Ram Autar Singh states that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit to which learned standing counsel has no objection and it has been agreed that the matter may be disposed of finally at this stage.

(3.) The contention raised by Sri K.R. Sirohi is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while remanding the matter has failed to exercise his jurisdiction by not entering into the issue relating to the validity of the compromise as well as the impact of the order dated 31st October, 1984. In such a situation, the order of remand before the Consolidation Officer by setting aside the order dated 1.3.1996 is unjustified. He submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation without recording any independent finding on his own on the said two issues, it could not have been said that the matter needed a remand before the Consolidation Officer. He submits that this is the error which has been pointed out by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and without rectifying the same or recording any finding on the said issue, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed the same error himself and could not have remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer. In essence, the argument is that without satisfying the basis/factum of the compromise that has crystallized in the order dated 1st March, 1996, there was no occasion for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer. He submits that at the best he could have remanded the matter back to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to satisfy himself on the said two scores before proceeding to decide the appeal.