JAGA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 264 petitioners filed this joint petition against an order of respondent no. 1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia, dated 25th October, 1975, dismissing two revisions under Sec. 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). These revisions were filed against the order of respondent no. 2, Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 5th July, 1975 allowing 71 appeals in part and setting aside the provisional consolidation scheme of the entire village and directing preparation of the same afresh after giving an opportunity to all such persons who had any objection to the valuation of the Chaks. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that the Assistant Consolidation Officer had completely ignored the provisions of the law and the Rules in preparing the provisional consolidation scheme, which was full of illegalities and irregularities and called for whole-sale setting aside of the same.

(2.) THESE 264 petitioners filed this Petition mainly on the ground that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had passed the order dated 25th October, 1975 violating the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the order was passed without hearing the petitionres. Their case was that the provisional consolidation scheme was prepared properly and in accordance with law. The said scheme could not be set aside completely by either the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of their appellate and revisional jurisdiction and that these two authorities had shirked their duties in not deciding the .appeals and the revisions on the merits making necessary modifications wherever necessary. In other words, the contention was that the entire consolidation scheme could not be set at nought by these two authorities and that they had acted without jurisdiction in doing so.

(3.) IT is evident that due to non- impleadment of the heirs of the deceased petitioners, the Petition on their behalf cannot proceed and the orders of the Respondents 1 and 2 have become final as against them. The effect would be that as against 17 deceased petitioners and their heirs the impugned orders would stand. The statement made at the Bar is an effort to get over this situation and to put forward the case on behalf of the rest of the Petitioners, as if the 17 deceased petitioners were no parties to this petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that even allowing the oral prayer would make no difference to the final outcome in this case. The oral prayer is accordingly allowed. The Writ Petition is now considered on the merits, as it involves the interests of all the tenure-holders in the concerned village.