RAM MAHESH Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION SULTANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 26th July, 1985 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation rejecting the revision to be not maintainable by saying that the impugned order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation fell in the category of interlocutory order. He further rejected the review application vide order dated 29th August, 1985 by saying that he has got no jurisdiction to review his earlier order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that an appeal filed by the opposite parties 3 to 5 against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was pending in the court of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. It has been averred in the writ petition that the petitioners Ram Mahesh and others had filed five documents in support of their claim before the Settlement Officer Consolidation in the said appeal. These documents are said to be certified copies of the second settlement, copy of the Khatauni of 3rd settlement, copies of Khatauni of 1356F. and 1359F. and extract of CH Form 7 relating to the land in dispute. These documents were kept under sealed cover on the prayer made by the petitioners. It appears that the counsel of opposite parties 3 to 5 had applied for inspection of those documents which were kept in sealed cover. These documents were subsequently found to be missing and so the petitioners had requested the Settlement Officer Consolidation to lodge a report against the opposite parties for whom it was said that they had got those documents removed from the file. A report was called from the clerk concerned by the Settlement Officer Consolidation which has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. Learned Settlement Officer Consolidation instead of lodging the report himself, had directed the petitioners to lodge a report. Against this order petitioners had filed under section 7 of the Act not for a scheme or an independent Committee to manage the Trust, but for appointment of some persons of her choice to assist her in the management. She only seeks assistance of some body to manage the trust property and it certainly requires no complicated questions of fact or law to be investigated. The Court, therefore, was well within its jurisdiction under section 7 of the Act to grant that request. 12. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed. revision which was rejected by the Joint Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 26-7-1985 saying that it was an interlocutory order. He also rejected the review petition vide order dated 29-8-1985 saying it to be not maintainable.