MAHAVEER SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LITIGATIVE dispute in the instant petition having originated in the year 1901, has been erupting at regular intervals like proverbial sphinx emerging from ashes. The initial dispute culminated in the award dated April 2, 1901. Now the matter having journeyed upto the Apex Court has again come up before this Court by means of the present petition in which the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.7.2003 assed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar whereby the matter has been remanded to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh ostensibly holding that the decision of the Apex Court has been misconstrued and has not been implemented in letter and spirit.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the rights and shares of the parties stood clinched by the judgment of the Apex Court dated 6.3.1984 and the only question that remained was to levy implementation to the judgment of the Apex Court. It is further canvassed that the Consolidation Officer passed orders in obedience to the directions embodied in the judgment of the Apex Court but the Deputy Director of Consolidation on fallacious assumption of the facts that parties were not given adequate opportunity of hearing remitted the matter to the Consolidation for decision afresh. Per contra, learned counsel representing the opposite parties contended that the order of remand has been made rightly and in accordance with law.

(3.) IN view of what has been observed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his judgment, it is rendered necessary to scan the provisions of Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Explanation (3) of Section 48 being germane is excerpted below for ready reference : 'Explanation (3). - -The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any findings, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to re -appreciate any oral or documentary evidence.' Considering the Judgment of the Deputy Director Consolidation in Juxtaposition of the provisions of the aforesaid section, it is clear that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has misconstrued the entire situation and proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. It being a matter of compliance of the direction of the Apex Court, the power embodied in Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act should not impinge upon so much as to postpone its compliance inasmuch as the Judgment of the Apex Court clearly postulated that allotment has to be made in terms of the award and direction has to be construed and observed in compliance accordingly and not otherwise. From an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances, I do not think that the matter merited remand and to all appearance, the impugned order manifests itself in contrariety of the directions of the Apex Court and cannot be sustained.