LAWS(ALL)-1967-8-39

RAJBUNNISA W/O SYED IRSHAD HUSAIN, R/O VILLAGE KHOOLI, PARGANA DEWA, TAHSIL NAWABGANJ, DISTRICT BARABANKI Vs. SYED SHAMSHAD HUSAIN AND OTHERS

Decided On August 09, 1967
Rajbunnisa W/O Syed Irshad Husain, R/O Village Khooli, Pargana Dewa, Tahsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki Appellant
V/S
Syed Shamshad Husain And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal is directed against an order of a learned Single Judge of this court allowing a writ petition. There was a dispute between Syed Shamshad Husain and Syed Aijaz Husain on one side and Smt. Rajbunnisa on the other side before the consolidation authorities. Smt. Rajbunnisa filed an objection claiming exclusive rights in plot No. 113. Her claim was rejected by the consolidation officer. Her appeal was also dismissed. She filed a revision under Sec. 48 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act. Her revision was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barakanki. Syed Shamshad Husain and Syed Aijaz Husain filed the writ petition challenging the revisional order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition has been allowed. The order of the Deputy-Director was quashed by the learned single judge on July 21, 1966. Smt. Rajbunnisa has filed the present special appeal against that order, dated July 21, 1966.

(2.) The learned single judge quashed the order of the Deputy Director on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The proper remedy of Smt. Rajbunnisa was to file a second a appeal, instead of filing a second appeal, she filed a revision under Sec. 48, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is not disputed before us that the proper remedy was a second appeal and the revision was misconceived.

(3.) It has however been urged before us that even though there was defect of jurisdiction, that was not a sufficient ground for interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Reliance has been placed upon Ajit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 856 . In that case a certain officer started consolidation proceedings, although he was not consolidation officer. At a late stage the point was raised before the Punjab High Court in a petition. Punjab High Court refused to interfere. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. It was observed on page 859:-