JAGADAMBA SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, AYODHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mohammad Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prabhakar Vardhan Chaudhary and Mohammad Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Sri R.S. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the caveator. The order impugned in this petition dtd. 23/3/2023 passed by the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya in Revision No. 1864/2020530423000014 (Bajrang Pratap Singh and others vs. Jagdamba Singh) is an order of remand, whereby, the respondent No. 1 after interfering in the order dtd. 22/6/2019 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as also the orders dtd. 29/6/2016 and 11/7/2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer remanded the matter back to the Court of Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Ayodhya for deciding the matter afresh. The relevant portion of the order impugned dtd. 23/3/2023 on reproduction reads as under:-

(2.) A perusal of relevant observation, quoted above, as also the recitals of the order impugned dtd. 23/3/2023, this Court finds that the parties to the litigation after remand were not required to adduce evidence in support of their case. Despite this, the respondent No. 1 vide order impugned dtd. 23/3/2023 remanded the mater back to Consolidation Officer for decision afresh on merits. Sri Khan, learned Senior Advocate while assailing the order impugned dtd. 23/3/2023 stated that the respondent No. 1 in the given facts and circumstances of the case ought not to have remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the case afresh on merits as he himself is empowered to decide it on merits in view of settled legal proposition. In support of his submission, Sri Khan has placed reliance on the judgment dtd. 10/2/2023 passed by this Court in WRIT- B No. 108 of 2023 (Angad Pratap Singh And Others vs. Deputy Director Consolidation/ Addl. District Magistrate (F/R), Lakhimpur Kheri And Others).

(3.) He further submitted that the Revisional Court/Authority under the Act of 1953 is having wide powers. Power under this Sec. of the Act of 1953 includes power to examine any finding whether it is of fact or law. D.D.C. while hearing revision under this Sec. is fully empowered to reassess the evidence and record its own findings of fact by virtue of Sec. 48 Explanation 3. Under this Sec. of the Act of 1953, the D.D.C. has power to reassess the findings of subordinate consolidation Authorities. Reference has also been made to the judgment of this Court Prabhu Dayal v. D.D.C./Additional District Magistrate (Administration) Manipuri and Another, 2018 (140) RD 460 (All.); Musuttu vs. D.D.C. and others, 2018 (140) RD 505 (All.); Dhooram vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bagpat, 2006 (100) RD 505 (H.C.). Sri Khan further submitted that in the dispute between the parties, the Consolidation Officer passed the order on 10/10/1957. Thereafter, an order on 18/2/1958 was passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and thereafter the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed the order on 9/8/1958. Being aggrieved, a Writ Petition No. 3389 of 1958 was filed by Smt. Lekhraji, which was dismissed as abated. The dispute between the parties regarding rights over the land, in issue, could not be settled. To adjudicate the issue involved, a suit for declaration was filed under Sec. 229-B/209 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "Act of 1950"), which was registered as Case No. 1168. Another suit was also filed in the same provisions, which was registered as Case No. 1099/75-519/1102. During pendency of the said suits, second operation of consolidation was started on 15/11/1980 and since then, the dispute between the parties has not been decided. The matter has again been remanded back to the Consolidation Officer concerned for decision afresh. This remand order has been passed after lapse of about 43 years from initiation of second consolidation proceedings. He says that in view of settled principle of law, the respondent No. 1 ought to have decided the issues involved in the case including the issue of maintainability after taking note of Sec. 11-A and 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"). Thus, interference of this Court is required in the matter. The prayer is to allow this petition and remand the matter back to respondent No. 1 to consider and decide the issues involved in the case after giving proper opportunity of hearings to the parties to the litigation.