TAJ MOHAMMAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Present petition has its genesis in the orders dated 15-12-2005 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation and 29-9-2005 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the caveator and learned Standing Counsel.

(3.) RULE 65 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings rule which deals with the transfer of cases being relevant is quoted below. "65. Section 54 (1) - The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, may withdraw any case from the file of any Consolidation Officer or Assistant Consolidation Officer subordinate to him and may refer the same for disposal to any other Consolidation Officer or Assistant Consolidation Officer competent to deal therewith. . . " From a punctilious reading of the above rule, it leaves no manner of doubt that the Settlement Officer Consolidation is clothed with the power to transfer any case from the file of any Consolidation Officer or Asstt. Consolidation Officer for disposal to any other Consolidation Officer or Asstt. Consolidation Officer. From a perusal of the order dated 5-7- 2005, it would crystallize that jurisdiction of competent Consolidation Officer having jurisdiction to consider and decide objections of tenure-holders against proposed allotment was transferred to other Consolidation Officers having no jurisdiction to decide such objections. This order appears to have been passed without issuing to concerned Consolidation Officer or without giving opportunity to other tenure-holders of the village. In my considered view such orders cannot be said to fall within the scope of RULE 65 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings RULEs which envisages that Settlement Officer Consolidation may withdraw any case from the file of any Consolidation Officer and may refer the same for disposal to any other Consolidation Officer but cannot pass any order to transfer the jurisdiction of the area to some other Consolidation Officer. However, in the facts of the present case where the Settlement Officer Consolidation has passed an order on 29th September, 2005, after hearing both the parties and considering each and every aspect, whereby transfer application was rejected on merits does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. This order was rightly affirmed by the Deputy Director Consolidation.