PADAM NATH SINGH Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the prayer is that a writ of Certiorari may be issued quashing the order dated 20 -2 -86 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh in a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (for short the Act), and the order dated 21 -4 -69 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation rejecting the appeal of the Petitioner under Section 21(2) of the Act in proceedings under Section 20 for the allotment of Chak.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix of the case is that the consolidation proceedings commenced in village Pardaha Pargana Mohammadabad Gohna, district Azamgarh and allotment of Chak proceedings were initiated. The Petitioner could not know about any order of the Consolidation Officer, consequently he sent a letter (Annexure 1 to the petition) stating that as he was not regularly residing in the village, consequently he could not know about the progress of consolidation operations, particularly allotment of Chaks and that a chak of very bad share has been allotted to him and that the Chak road has been made in such a way that it cannot be used as a road and the common way has been included in his chak. However, that letter was very surprisingly treated by the Settlement Officer Consolidation to be a memo of appeal and that appeal was decided by the impugned order and the same was dismissed. As the order was passed in the absence of Petitioner and without any information to him, the Petitioner filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, along with an affidavit explaining the delay (Annexure 4 to the petition). It was stated in the affidavit that as the Petitioner does not reside in the village, rather he lives at Allahabad in connection with his practice, consequently he could not know about the progress of consolidation operations in the village, nor he could know anything about the impugned order dated 21 -4 -69 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation rejecting the appeal substantially, and when he came to the village on 11 -7 -88, he learnt about the rejection of appeal, hence he preferred revision with all diligence as there has been no deliberate delay nor there was any lack of sincerity, hence the delay in revision may, be condoned and the same may be treated to be within time.

(3.) S /S. G.N. Verma and H.P. Dubey, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the power of Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act was very comprehensive and the spirit of language of Section 48 is far reaching. The Director of Consolidation has suo moto power to call for and examine record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality of proceedings or correctness or propriety of the order passed by him and as the circumstances of the case were such that even under suo moto power the Deputy Director of Consolidation could ascertain the correctness, legality or propriety of the orders passed by the subordinate authorities. In any case the delay was satisfactorily explained by the affidavit filed in support of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and a liberal view ought to have been taken. It was further urged that when record of the case was summoned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation he must have decided the revision on merits and not just on technicalities. From para 2 of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation it appears that relevant files were perused, meaning there by that the record of subordinate authority was summoned, hence the revision must have been decided on merits. Reliance was placed on Rama Kant Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation : AIR 1975 All. 126 (FB).