PARASURAM Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Raj Kishore filed a complaint against Parasuram stating that he had illegally made constructions in the plots allotted to him in proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The complaint was filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation who incidentally also exercised magisterial powers. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation convicted Raj Kishore and sentenced Parasuram to a fine of Rs. 200-/. Aggrieved by that order Parasuram filed a revision purporting to be under section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, which came up before Sri Sukhdeo Prasad Tripathi, Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Case was numbered as revision no. 769 under section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, Parasuram v. Raj Kishore and others. He allowed the revision by an order dated 7th April, 1975 and directed that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation should try the matter as Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in accordance with the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. When the matter came up after remand before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation it was pleaded on behalf of Raj Kishore that Parasuram should be examined. This application was opposed on behalf of Parasuram, the petitioner. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation held that the Code of Criminal Procedure applied to the trial and, therefore, he directed that Parasuram be examination 22-10-1975. Aggrieved by that order Parasuram again filed a revision under section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the revision holding that the Code of Criminal procedure applied to the trial of an offence under section 45-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and as such, the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, was correct. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner Parasuram that the consolidation authorities, when they deal with an offence under section 45-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act do not take cognizance of the offence under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 45-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act runs as follows : "45-A. Penalty for contravening provisions of Sec. 5-(l) Any person contravening the provisions of sec. 5(c) (i) shall, on conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction, be liable to a fine not exceeding rupees one thousand. (2) A transfer made in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 5(c) (ii) shall not be valid or recognized : anything contained in any other law for the time being in force to contrary not withstanding." It is necessary to point out that no forum is prescribed under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings. Act for the trial of an offence under section 45-A of the said Act. In this situation the trial of the offence would be in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State v. Avtar Krishna(1957 Cr. L. J. 167.), held that for the trial or an offence committed under the Sales Tax Act, for which no forum had been prescribed, the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply. The position under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is also the same and in my view the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply to the trial of an offence under section 45-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. There is another aspect of the matter that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had exercised revisional powers twice. As mentioned earlier, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation also happens to exercise magisterial powers. When the Settlement Officer is exercising magisterial powers.. he does not Act as an authority subordinate to the Deputy Director or Director of Consolidation. The two revisional orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation are also, therefore, without jurisdiction. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, while being seized of the matter on both occasions appeared to be under the impression that they were functioning in their capacity as Settlement Officer, Consolidation and not in their capacity as magistrates. In the circumstances, the earlier order of conviction passed against the petitioner which was illegally set aside in revision cannot be allowed to stand, as the Settlement Officer, Consolidation who tried the matter and convicted the petitioner did not apply his mind to the matter in his capacity as Magistrate which he undoubtedly possessed. That order l set aside in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who is seized of the matter at the moment, as held above, must apply to the Code of Criminal Procedure to the trial of the matter before him. He is directed to try and dispose of the matter in the manner laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The two orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation are also illegal and they are also accordingly quashed. The learned counsel for the respondent state that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation possesses magisterial powers. The judgment has proceeded so far on the basis that he did possess magisterial powers. However, if he does not possess magisterial powers or h not a Court of competent jurisdiction to try the offence, the proceedings, should be dropped. The parties may thereafter take the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction. No order as to cost.