RAM ACHCHAIBAR Vs. SETTLEMENT OFFICER CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the Petitioners is directed against the order dated 10th February, 1984 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the order dated 18th August, 1983 passed by the Consolidation Officer. These orders were passed consequent upon the order dated 17th January, 1978 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision filed under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which apparently became final although according to the Petitioners this order has been challenged by filing a writ petition in this Court which is still pending. The order dated 17th January, 1978 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was sought to be given effect to in pursuance of the provisions of Rule 109 -A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. The statutory provisions of Rule 109 -A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules are set out below for the sake of convenience:

(2.) THE order of the Consolidation Officer purports to have been passed under Rule 109 -A(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules where this order was given effect to: One of the modes of giving effect to the order is that by entering the name of the successful person 'in the revenue records, in other words the amal -daramad proceedings. It is this procedure which has been adopted and the name of the successful party has been entered in pursuance of the impugned order of the Consolidation Officer dated 18th August, 1983 (Annexure '2' to the writ petition). Against this order that the appeal was preferred which was dismissed by order dated 19th February, 1984.

(3.) IT was next contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the appeal has been incorrectly held to be not maintainable. Under Rule 109 -A(3) the appeal can be filed only if an order has been passed under Rule 109 -A(2) and not in the case the order has been passed under Rule 109 -A(1). As the present order was not (?) passed under Rule 109 -A(1), hence no appeal could have been filed against that order.