NATHU RAM Vs. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment, of a learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant by which he challenged the validity of the order of the Director of Consolidation passed under Sec. 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) In proceedings under Sec. 9 of the Act the Consolidation Officer held that Nathu Ram appellant was in possession of the land since 1361-F. and had acquired Bhumidhari rights and Chheda Lal, respondent No. 2, was not entitled to the land. Appeal filed against the order was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and Chheda Lal was held entitled to the land. Against this order a second appeal was filed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, by his order dated 5-1-63, allowed the appeal and directed that the name of Nathu Ram should be maintained in the records as Bhumidhar and not that of Chheda Lal. Against the order a revision under Sec. 48 of the Act was preferred and the Director of Consolidation allowed the revision on 14-6-66. The Director of Consolidation went into the merits of the matter, and on the fresh findings of fact recorded by him, held that Chheda Lal and not Nathu Ram was entitled to be the Bhumiahar of the holding in dispute. Against this order Nathu Ram filed the Writ Petition challenging it on the ground that the Director had travelled beyond his jurisdiction in going into the merit on the matter and recording findings of fact on the basis of his own appreciation of evidence. The contention was that the powers of the revisional authority were limited to matter of jurisdiction as contained in Sec. 48 of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act of 1963. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge on the finding that the amended Sec. 48 was applicable and the Director had a right to go into the questions of fact and give his own findings. He relied be a decision of this Court in Prem Chand Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1966 A.L.J. 641 . Learned single Judge also held that the petitioner was not entitled to get any relief from this Court as he had not appeared before the Director of Consolidation and had not applied for getting the ex parte order passed in revision set aside. In the appeal before us learned counsel has challenged the correctness of both the views, taken by the learned single Judge.

(3.) In my opinion, the learned single Judge was in error in holding that the provisions of the amended Sec. 48 were applicable to the present revision and not those of the unamended section. Sec. 48 as it stood prior to the amendment gave to the Director only limited powers of interference, he could interfere only if the Deputy Director had exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him or acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with substantial irregularity. After the amendment of Sec. 48 by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1963, the revisional powers were enlarged and the Director of Consolidation was given the power to examine the record in any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority and, to pass such orders as he thought fit, and could examine, in passing that order, the correctness, legality or propriety of the order of the subordinate authority. In case the amended Sec. applied, the order would be justified, but if the unamended Sec. applied, the order passed by the Director of Consolidation would be liable to be quashed.