FAUJDAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the questions which has arisen in the writ petition is as to whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') can directly hear the revision against an order passed under Section 9A of the Act. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner Sri R. N. Singh is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has no Jurisdiction to entertain a revision under Section 48 of the Act directly against the order passed under Section 9A. He has submitted that there is provision of appeal under Section 11 of the Act, hence revision can neither be filed nor can be entertained by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In support of his submission the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions : (1) Damodar Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. Allahabad and others, 1996 AWC (Suppl) 158 ; 1995 RD 534. (2) Santosh Kumar and others v. U. P. Sanchalak Chakbandt, Faizabad and others, 1998 (89) RD 578, (3) Ranjeet and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and others, 1999 (2) AWC 1415 ; 1999 (90) RD 363. (4) Hari Har Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and others, 2000 RD 608. (5) Judgment dated 28.9.1999 passed in Writ Petition No. 26527 of 1999, Rama Shanker Singh and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and another.

(2.) IN Damodar Prasad's case (supra), learned single Judge has taken the view that an order passed under Section 9B being appealable even challenged in revision without availing of the remedy of appeal, could be destructive of a remedy under the Act. Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid Judgment is extracted below : - - - - '6, It may also be pertinent to observe that an order under Section 9B being appealable, its challenge in revision without availing of the remedy of appeal would be destructive of a remedy under the Act. The order dated 21.2.1990 was certainly an order under Section 9B of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act ought not to be exercised in a manner which may be destructive of a statutory remedy. This aspect of the matter also needs to be examined at the end of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.'

(3.) IN Ranjeet's case (supra) again, the learned single Judge took the view relying on the case of Santosh Kumar. that challenge in revision under Section 48 of the Act without availing the remedy of appeal is destructive of statutory remedy. It was held in paragraph 6 of the judgment: '6. The facts of these three cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 are different, in all these three cases the appeal before the Settlement Officer was not pending. In the instant case, as seen above the appeal and cross -appeals were pending before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), the petitioners specifically urged before the Deputy Director of Consolidation that in view of the pendency of the appeal, the revision was not maintainable. The present case is a case where the jurisdiction exercised by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is destructive of the statutory remedy of appeal and it is a fit case which calls for interference in petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.'