JWALA Vs. SHIAMLAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The facts leading up to it may be briefly stated. Consolidation of holdings proceedings were going on in the village of the parties and the Petitioner filed an objection under Sec. 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The objection was decided against him and be preferred an appeal against that decision to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). While the appeal was pending proposals under Sec. 19 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act were framed and finding that the point he had raised in his objection under Sec. 12 had not been finally decided the Petitioner filed an objection under Sec. 20 of the Act. Along with the objection he filed an application under Sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing of the objection. As required by Clause (2) of Sec. 20 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act the objection was filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. That officer by his order dated 27th of Aug., 1959 rejected the objection taking the view that delivery of possession had taken place and an affidavit had not been filed to support the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer was itself not appealable. The Petitioner, therefore, went up in revision against it to the Deputy Director (Consolidation) who rejected the application on 23rd of Dec., 1959. The Petitioner then filed this petition praying that the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the order of the Deputy Director (Consolidation) upholding it be quashed by a writ of certiorari. AS the petition had been filed with some delay the Petitioner offered an explanation in para. 8 of the affidavit filed in support of his petition.

(2.) On merits the Petitioner appears to have a very good case. He filed an objection under Sec. 20 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer as was required by Sub-clause (2) of that section. Clause (1) of Sec. 21 of the Act provides as follows:-

(3.) In the present case instead of forwarding the objection filed by the Petitioner to the Consolidation Officer as required by Clause (1) of Sec. 21, as quoted above what the Assistant Consolidation Officer did was that he rejected the objection on the ground that the delivery of possession had already taken place and that there was no affidavit in support of the application made under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. This rejection of the objection by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was clearly without jurisdiction. He had no power under the Act to dispose of the objection. He could only submit it to the Consolidation Officer who alone was entitled to dispose it of. Under Clause (2) of Sec. 21 an appeal could be filed had the objection been disposed of by the Consolidation Officer in the present case the objection having been rejected by the Assistant consolidation Officer the Petitioner could not go in appeal against the order of rejection. He, therefore, filed an application in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation but that application in revision was rejected and the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer was confirmed. As the latter order is void for want of jurisdiction the subsequent order in revision confirming it cannot be of any effect.