KUSHAR Vs. AHMED KHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal arises out of writ petition No. 57 of 1961, which was filed by one Kushar under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, primarily against Ahmad Khan respondent no. 1. The dispute between the appellant Kushar and Ahmad Khan relates to plot no. 337/4 with an area of 1 Bigha, 13 Biswas and 12 Biswansis in village Mujasa, pargana and tahsil Malihabad in district Lucknow. One Nawab Khan was originally a tenant of this plot. Ahmad Khan, respondent No. 1, is his son. According to the allegations of Ahmad Khan, Kushar was a sub-tenant in this plot and on the abolition of Zamindari under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, he became an asami. Ahmad Khan, therefore, filed a suit for declaration to that effect and for the ejectment of Kushar under Sec. 202 of the aforesaid Act. Kushar, on the other hand, alleged that he was an adhivasi in this plot and acquired sirdari rights under Sec. 240-B of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (to be referred to hereafter as the Act and that Ahmad Khan had even received compensation in respect of his bhumidhari and sirdari rights, whatever they may happen to be, in this plot under the provisions 2 of the Act as his rights vested in the State under Sec. 240-B. This suit was decreed by the Munsif and an appeal filed by Kushar against the same is said to have been stayed under the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. After the hearing of this appeal was stayed, Ahmad Khan filed an objection under Sec. 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, V of 1954, before the Assistant Consolidation Officer with the prayer that his name be recorded against this plot No. 337/4 as bhumidhar and that the entry of the name of Kushar be expunged. The objection was contested on behalf of Kushar, but was allowed by the Chakbandi Officer on 8th July, 1960. He directed that the name of Ahmad Khan be recorded as Bhumidhar of the plot and that the name of Kushar be entered only as an asami. Kushar went up in appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who dismissed the same under his order dated 22nd Aug., 1960. Kushar then filed second appeal No. 43 before the Deputy Director Consolidation, who allowed the same and set aside the order passed by the Chakbandi Officer, with the result that the objection filed by Ahmad Khan stood dismissed. Ahmad Khan then filed a revision before the Director of Consolidation, whose powers are exercised by the Commissioner. He allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and restored the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. It was against this order that the writ petition was filed by Kushar. The Director of Consolidation was joined as opposite-party No. 2, the State of Uttar Pradesh as opposite-party No. 3, the Settlement Officer as opposite-party no. 4 and Consolidation Officer as opposite-party No. 4 and Consolidation Officer as opposite-party No. 5. The prayer in the petition was that the order passed by the Director of Consolidation dated 12th Dec., 1960, be quashed by a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ, order or direction.

(2.) The petition was heard by Mr. Justice Mulla, who found that there was no illegality in the order passed by the Director of Consolidation which needed correction, specially by the special powers conferred on this Court under the writ jurisdiction. The petition was, consequently, dismissed summarily and it is against that order that this special appeal has been filed by Kushar.

(3.) The Director of Consolidation has jurisdictoin to revise an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Sec. 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. But that Sec. gives jurisdiction to the Director only under specified circumstances, namely where the Deputy Director of Consolidation has