AJODHYA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In respect of land of Khata No. 126, two sets of objections were filed, one by the Petitioner and the other by some of the Respondents. Both these objections were treated as one single case, being case No. 3066 of 1970 -71 by the Consolidation Officer and were dismissed subsequently by him. Aggrieved the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation); whereas two appeals were filed by the Respondents. The appeals filed by the Respondents were allowed but the appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Petitioner challenged the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by filing a revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation. This revision was filed within limitation and was in order. Subsequently, it appears that on legal advice, the Petitioner filed two more revisions. This advice seems to have been given in view of the fact that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had by his order disposed of three appeals in respect of the land of Khata No. 126. The two revisions filed subsequently were beyond limitation and were also not accompanied with a copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not summarily dismiss the two revisions on the ground that they were either belated or were defective on account of a copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer not being filed. On the other hand he issued notice on all the three revisions. On the date of hearing of the revisions, a preliminary objection was raised that the two revisions which were barred by time and were also not accompanied with a copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer ought to be dismissed. The preliminary objection prevailed with the Dy. Director of Consolidation. He dismissed those two revisions on the ground of being barred by time as also of non compliance of Rule 111 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. He dismissed the first revision which was in order on the ground that it was barred by res judicata. Aggrieved the Petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) IT was urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the principle of res judicata was not attracted and even if the other two revisions which were filed subsequently, were ignored it was incumbent upon the Dy. Director of Consolidation to have decided the revision which was in order on merits. He committed a manifest error of law in dismissing that revision on the ground that it was barred by res judicata.

(3.) IN my opinion, Sheodan Singh's case is distinguishable on facts. In that case two suits had been filed raising common issues, whereas the instant case was not that of two separate suits. As already seen, both the sets of objections filed in regard to the land in dispute were treated as one single case. The law laid down in Narhari's case by the Supreme Court and not in Sheodan Singh's case is, therefore, applicable in the present case.