GULAB SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was tenure holder of plot no. 691. This was kept out of consolidation on the ground that the land was of very bad quality and was not fit for cultivation. THE petitioner states that he had made an objection praying that his holding should be valued, but the same was rejected on 6-1-75 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, and thereafter on 18-6-79 he obtained an order in his favour whereby his plot no. 691/2 (area 6 bighas, 15 biswas, 2 biswansis) was given a valuation of annas 4 while in place of that land he was given Gaon Sabha's ban jar land (area 13 bighas, 10 biswas, 4 biswansis) which was given a valuation of only anas 2. Against this order which was exparte the Pradhan filed a restoration application which was dismissed by the S. O. C. on 29-8-79. THE Pradhan had filed a revision which had been allowed and the D. D. C. had observed that the petitioner had actually not filed any objection at all under section 9 and that the orders passed by the SOC were without jurisdiction. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has come to this Court.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, namely, the petitioner and the Gaon Sabha.

(3.) IT was held by Hon'ble R. B. Misra, J. as he then was, in Rameshwar Sahai v. Deputy Director, 1973 AWR 238, that in respect of Gaon Sabha property every adult member of the village, being legally a member of the Gaon Sabha, is a person interested. The Pradhan was certainly not in a worse position than any other adult member of the village, and if he brought to the notice of the DDC (hat the Gaon Sabha property was being spirited away under the cover of an illegal order obtained by the petitioner from the SOC there was nothing wrong on the part of the DDC in allowing for exercise of his powers under section 48 read with section 11-C. The DDC was not required to state in so many words that he was exercising suo motu powers. IT was enough that he did have that power. As held in V. T. Khanzode v. Reserve Bank, (1982) 2 SCC 7 (para 23), "failure to mention the source of power cannot invalidate the exercise of power, if the power is possessed by the authority which exercise it." The question whether DDC could entertain the revision was expressly considered, and the petitioner cannot be heard to say that he had no intimation that the DDC was going to act suo motu under section 48. The existence of he petitioner's own objection and the date of the institution of his appeal were not free from suspicion. The law as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the question of locus standi has now developed considerably in the direction of protecting public interest and public property, as would appear from Municipal Council v. Vardhichand, AIR 1980 SC 1622, Fertilizer Corporation Kumgar Union v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 568 (paras 23, 37 to 48), and S. P.Gupta v. President, AIR 1982 SC 149. In this view of the matter, I find no| substance in the objection of the petitioner's counsel that the DDC was not competent to entertain or decide the revision merely on the ground that it. was filed by the Pradhan without any resolution of the Gaon Sabha authorising him in that behalf.