RAMDEO Vs. CONSOLIDATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nucleus of attention in this petition is the order passed by Deputy Director Consolidation, Ghazipur, dated 30.7.2003 (Annexure-4 to the petition). The grievance of the petitioner in assailing this order is that the order dated 26.7.2003 passed by the Consolidation Commissioner weighed with the Deputy Director Consolidation, Ghazipur, who recalled the interim order passed in the revision and directed the subordinate authorities to carve out the chaks and deliver possession in obedience to the judgment of the appellate court.

(2.) The dispute has its genesis in the fact that the authorities marked excessive value of certain land situate in village Rampur pargana Khanpur Tahsil Saidpur district Ghazipur which were uncultivable and unproductive. The petitioners having met their Waterloo in proceedings before the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation preferred revision before the Deputy Director Consolidation followed by application for interim relief in revision. The Deputy Director passed interim order thereby directing to maintain status quo in relation to the possession vide order dated 24.7.2003. During pendency of the revision before the Deputy Director Consolidation, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 made some application dated 26.7.2003 at the end of Director Consolidation for demarcation of their chaks. The Director Consolidation acting upon this application, issued directions to the Deputy Director Consolidation, Ghazipur, the text of which is that if there be no legal impediment, the chaks of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 be carved out by measurement. It would transpire from the record that in consequence of this direction, the Deputy Director Consolidation marked the matter to the Consolidation Officer, Saidpur, while recalling its interim order and directing to effect delivery of possession in pursuant of the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. It is in this background that the present petition has been instituted for the relief.

(3.) The sheet anchor of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Consolidation Commissioner was not clothed with any authority or power to act as a Court and further that the directions issued by it had the complexion of an administrative direction which could not override the order passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation as a Court in exercise of quasi-judicial powers. It was further canvassed that the Deputy Director erroneously acted on the directions of the Director Consolidation and recalled the interim order passed on judicial side after hearing the parties. It was further canvassed that the directions of the Consolidation Commissioner had been issued on application moved by respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and this direction to the Deputy Director Consolidation had no judicial complexion and in the circumstances, the Deputy Director Consolidation exhibited his obsequiousness to his superior administrative authority subduing his judicial role to subalternity. He further submitted that Consolidation Commissioner had no juridical role in the hierarchy and directions issued by him amounted to interference with the judicial functions exercised by Deputy Director Consolidation in the scheme of Consolidation of Holdings Act. The learned counsel also submitted that kharif crops of macca and jwar are standing and the petitioners are still in possession over the plots in question. It was lastly submitted that construction raised by the petitioners have also been dismantled by the contesting respondents to the detriment of the petitioners. Sri K. K. Misra, holding belief of Sri Dinesh Singh, learned counsel representing the opposite parties proposed not to file any counter-affidavit and pressed for disposal of the matter at the threshold. In opposition, he contended that the Consolidation Commissioner was competent to issue the directions and the Deputy Director Consolidation being inferior in the hierarchical order to the Consolidation Commissioner was bound to act in obedience to the directions of the Consolidation Commissioner and he rightly passed the impugned order thereby recalling the interim order passed in revision and directing the Consolidation Officer to carve out the chak and deliver possession in pursuance of the order made by the Settlement Officer Consolidation.