MOH KALLU Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 11.1.2002 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The respondent No. 2 filed objection under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming allotment of original holding plot No. 56. The objection was rejected against which an appeal was filed. The appeal was partly allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by order dated 29.7.2000. An application to recall the order dated 29.7,2000 was filed on which the Settlement Officer of Consolidation again passed an order dated 7.4.2001. A revision was filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 11.1.2001 against which order the petitioner has come up to this Court in this writ petition.

(2.) Sri M. D. Misra appearing for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed error in himself disturbing the chak of the petitioner and making re-allotment. According to his submission the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not have power under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to reallocate the chak and in the present case, he ought to have remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation for reallocation of chaks if he is satisfied that the area of the petitioner has been increased by more than 55 per cent. Sri M. D. Misra has referred the provisions of Section 21 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and has submitted that under Section 21 (2) of the Act the duty is caste on the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the appeal after spot inspection. He has further referred the provisions of Section 21 (4) and stated that if, during the course of disposal of an objection or hearing of an appeal. Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer of Consolidation is of the opinion that material injustice is likely to be caused to a number of tenure-holders in giving effect to the Provisional Consolidation Scheme, as prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, or as subsequently modified by the Consolidation Officer, and that a fair and proper allotment of land to the tenure-holders of the units is not possible without revising the Provisional Consolidation Scheme, or getting a fresh one prepared, it shall be lawful, for reasons to be recorded in writing to revise the Provisional Consolidation Scheme, after giving opportunity of being heard to the tenure-holders concerned. He has further submitted that Section 21 clearly indicates that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been clothed with power of allotment and re-allotment. He has submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not possess such power and it was not within the power of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to reallocate the chaks and disturb the chak of the petitioner. Sri Misra has further submitted that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is erroneous and not in accordance with law.

(3.) After having heard counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it is clear that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, by the impugned order, has allowed the revision and has made amendment in the chak of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2. The legal submission which has been raised by Sri Misra is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not possess the power for allotment and it was necessary to remand the matter to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, has to be considered. The U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is special Act which contains the provisions for implementation of the consolidation in a unit. The consolidation proceedings proceed in different stages. Under Section 19 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the consolidation scheme is required to be prepared according to the principles referred to under Section 19. Section 19A relates to the preparation of Provisional Consolidation Scheme by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Provisional Consolidation Scheme is to be published and objections are to be filed. Section 21 pertains to disposal of objections to the Provisional Consolidation Scheme and subsection (2) of Section 21 provides filing of appeal. Sri Misra is correct in his submission that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been clothed with power to re-allocate the chak and to make spot inspection as contemplated under Section 21 (3). Section 21 (4) gives ample jurisdiction to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to make allotment and re-allotment. The question which has been raised by him is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 cannot himself make allotment and it ought to have remanded the matter. Sri Misra has further stated that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may have power with regard to title dispute and the Deputy Director of Consolidation may have right to Interfere in an order which arises out of the proceedings under Section 11 but the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot himself make allotment arising out of the proceedings under Section 20.