VIDYA BHUSHAN CHANDRA SHEKHAR Vs. PARAG BALBHADRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal is directed against an order passed by our brother Beg quashing by certiorari orders passed by a Consolidation Officer, a Settlement Officer and a Deputy Director on an objection filed by the appellant under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The statement of plots and tenure-holders was prepared under Section 11 and in it the respondent Parag was recorded as Sirdar of the land in dispute on the basis of similar entries in the village records. No objection was filed by the respondent claiming Bhumidhari rights over the land in dispute but an objection, though belated, was filed by the appellant claiming that he himself held Sirdari rights in the land and that the name of Parag was wrongly entered in the statement. The appellant had filed the objection before the Consolidation Officer. It has been filed under Section 12 (1) which as it stood then, was to the effect that "any person may within 30 days of the publication of the statement prepared under Section 11 file before the Assistant Consolidation Officer an objection disputing the correctness or nature of an entry in the statement *****" The objection was filed on 23-8-1957 when the Act contained Section 42 (5) to the effect that "where powers are to be exercised or duties to be performed by any officer appointed under this Act, such powers or duties may also be exercised or performed by the officers mentioned subsequent to him in Sub-section (1)." The officers mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 42 were : "(i) Assistant Consolidation Officer; (ii) Consolidation Officer; (iii) Settlement Officer (Consolidation); (iv) Assistant Director (Consolidation); and (v) Director of Consolidation." The Consolidation Officer condoned the delay in filing the objection and proceeded to dispose of it himself. The respondent appeared before him and filed a written statement claiming Bhumidhari rights in the land and denying that the appellant had Sirdari rights in it. The Consolidation Officer held that he was barred from claiming Bhumidhari rights by his failure to file an objection under Section 12 against the statement in which he was recorded as Sirdar. He held that the statement had, after the lapse of the period of 30 days prescribed for an objection under Section 12, become final as against him and that it was not open to him to claim any rights different from those which were recorded as possessed by him. It is to be noted that he did not decide the question whether he held Bhumidhari rights or not on the other hand he refused to go into the question on the ground that the respondent was debarred from raising the question in defence of the appellant's objection. He then held that the appellant was Sirdar and ordered the statement to be corrected by expunction of the name of the respondent and entry of the appellant's name in respect of the land in dispute. An appeal from his, order was dismissed by the Settlement Officer and a revision was also dismissed by the Deputy Director.

(2.) The respondent applied to our learned brother for certiorari to quash the above mentioned orders. Our learned brother quashed them on several grounds. One is that the Consolidation. Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the objection under Section 12 and to pass orders on it. Another is that no opinion of the Land Management Committee on the objection had been obtained as required by Section 12 (2). Third is that a question of Bhumidhari rights is a question of title and the question raised by the respondent should have been referred to the arbitrator as required by Section 12 (4) and should not have been decided by the Consolidation Officer himself.

(3.) We agree with our learned brother that the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's objection. Under Section 12 (1) only an Assistant Consolidation Officer had jurisdiction to entertain it. He was bound by Section 12 (2), to obtain the views of the Land Management Committee, hear the parties if necessary and submit his report on the objection to the Consolidation Officer, who was then to dispose of the objection in the prescribed manner. Rule 34 made by the State Government also required that an objection under Section 12 should be made in writing to the Assistant Consolidation Officer and should be accompanied as far as possible by the relevant extract in C. H. Form 20, that the Assistant Consolidation Officer should hear the parties in the village in order to ascertain from them the actual mature of the dispute and ascertain the views of the Consolidation Committee "on each case and record them in the form of resolution's in the Proceedings BOOK" and then prepare a report "in each case specially mentioning the opinion of the Consolidation Committee on the points in dispute and his own views" and forward it to the Consolidation Officer. It is clear from these provisions that an objection under Section 12 could be entertained only by an Assistant Consolidation Officer and could not be entertained by a Consolidation Officer. The procedure laid down in Section 12 (2) and Rule 34 could be followed by him and was not contemplated to be followed by any other officer. A Consolidation Officer had jurisdiction to pass orders on the objection but only on receipt of a report from an Assistant Consolidation Officer; he had no jurisdiction to pass orders on it otherwise. His jurisdiction was confined to passing orders on the Assistant Consolidation Officer's report "after such verification of facts from the parties concerned as necessary", wide Rule 34 (2) (a).