BABU RAM Vs. ARJUN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BABU Ram has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing of the order dated 16-03-71 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the material brought on the record. The dispute between the petitioner and opp. parties 1 to 3, Arjun Lal, Balgovind and Bisheshwar, related to Khata No. 3 which in the basic year was recorded in the name of the petitioner. These opp. parties filed objections before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer claiming to be sole occupants and that they should be recorded as tenure-holders and that the name of the petitioner be expunged. The matter was referred to the Consolidation Officer, who accepted the petitioner' s claim vide his order dated 14- 12-1969, which is Annexure-I to the writ petition. Arjun Lal alone filed appeal arraying Balgovind and Bisheshwar as respondents and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) allowed the appeal after allocating shares to various parties. This order was passed on 20-07-70 and is Annexure-2. The petitioner went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and in this revision on 21-01-1971 an application was moved by the petitioner praying for impleadment of Bisheshwar, Balgovind and Smt. Harbansa, wife of Swami Dayal but, the same was rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 21-01-71 contained in Annexure-A-5. When the revision came up for final hearing before the Deputy Director of Consolidation he dismissed the same on 16-03-71 on the ground that the necessary parties had not been impleaded. This order is Annexure-4.

(3.) IT is not necessary for this Court to substitute its own finding while exercising powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution which are supervisory in nature and this Court cannot convert itself as a court of appeal. Moreover I find that the entire record is not before this Court, hence it would not be proper for it to record a finding regarding the rights of the parties. That being so, I have no option but, to remand the case to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to dispose it of on merits and in accordance with law.