RAM AUTAR Vs. DEVI CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against an order dated 6th August, 1974 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition, in brief, are as follows :- On 10th May, 1974, the respondents nos. 1 to 7 filed an application in the Court of the Consolidation Officer, Bharatganj that certain constructions are being made on plot no. 175/2 against the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act inasmuch as no permission has been taken under Sec. 5 (c) (i) of the Act. On this application, the Consolidation Officer asked the Assistant Consolidation Officer to report. THE Assistant Consolidation Officer reported the matter to the effect that the plot no. 175/1 was recorded for public utility for a temple . and that he had asked one Kamla Prasad not to make constructions. It appears thereafter another application was made before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation for making a report in regard to some constructions. THE Settlement, Officer, Consolidation directed that a complaint be lodged against the persons against whom the report has been made. This order was passed on 31st May 1974. THE petitioner filed a revision against the order dated 31st May 1974. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision solely on the ground that the revision was not maintainable under Sec. 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

(3.) SO far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is correct and as such no interference is called for. Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act empowers the Director of Consolidation to call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings. In the instant case, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has only made a complaint to the court concerned for taking action for violation of the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The complaint shall be examined by the criminal court on merits after the parties produce their evidence before it. He has not either decided the case himself or any proceedings before him. In the circumstances, the Settlement Officer Consolidation has exercised only his administrative power for making complaint to the criminal court. He has not exercised any judicial powers or decided the case or proceedings pending before him. In this view of the matter, no revision lay under Sec. 48 of the Act.