SHIV NARAIN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR C MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against an order of Mr. Justice Chaturvedi by which he dismissed a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) One Govind Ram had several holdings in village Nagla Parsu, Mazra Mouza Gutehra, Pargana Saidabad District Mathura. He owned some of these holdings exclusively. In others he only owned a share. On his death the appellant claimed to be entitled to the holdings on the ground that he had been adopted by Govind Ram. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 contested the appellant's claim, denied his adoption and claimed to by the heirs of Govind Ram under the Hindu Law. The appellant, however, succeeded in having mutation ordered in his own favour. Consolidation proceedings then started in the village and in accordance with Section 11 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act a statement of the plots of tenure holders was prepared and published. In that statement the appellant was shown as tenure holder of the plots which formerly belonged to Govind Ram. An objection purporting to be one under Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was then sent by post to the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It purported to be on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, but is alleged to have been signed by one Radhan Kishan only. The Assistant Consolidation Officer rejected the objection on the ground that it had not been properly presented and had not been made by an authorised person. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 then went up in appeal to the Settlement Officer, who agreed with the view of the Assistant Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal. They then went up in revision to the Deputy Director of Consolidation who allowed the application in revision an 20-4-1957 set aside the order dismissing the objection and remanded the case for disposal on merits after giving an opportunity to the respondents Nos. 2, 3 to remove the defect that had been pointed out in respect of the objection. In the meantime a statement of principles had been prepared and published under Section 16 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act on the basis that no objection had been filed on behalf of the respondents. A statement of proposals under Section 19 of the Act was also prepared and published. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 then filed an application under Section 20 of the Act raising a question of title in respect of the holdings of Govind Ram and made a prayer to the Consolidation Officer that the question of title raised by them be referred to arbitration. This prayer was opposed on behalf of the appellant on the ground mat no objection under Section 12 having been filed at was not open to the respondents to raise a question of title and to have it referred to arbitration. The Consolidation Officer allowed the application of the respondents an respect of the khata of which Govind Ram was the sole owner and referred the question of title raised in respect of that khata to arbitration. He however rejected their prayer in respect of the khatas in which Govind Ram owned only a share and refused to make a reference in respect of those khatas. The respondents filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer against the order refusing to make a reference while the appellant preferred an appeal against the order making the reference. The respondents' appeal was dismissed by the Settlement Officer while the appellant's appeal was allowed. The respondents then filed two applications in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the two orders of the Settlement Officer. These two applications were allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his orders dated the 29th May and the 30th May 1957. He took the view that the respondents were entitled to have the question of title referred to arbitration in respect of all the khatas in dispute. He was of the opinion that the appellant's objection that no question of title could be raised as no objection had been filed under Section 12 of the Act was not tenable because he had already held that an objection under Section 12 had been filed and had directed by his previous order dated 20-4-1957 that the objection be heard on merits. The appellant then filed the writ petition against the dismissal of which the present appeal has been filed and prayed that the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 20-4-1957 and 30-5-1957 be quashed by a writ of certiorari. The main ground pressed in support of the application was that the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed a manifest error of law when he entertained the objection filed under Section 12 even though it had not been signed or presented by an authorised person. The other ground urged was that if in the eye of the law the objection filed under Section 12 was not a valid objection at all it was not open to the respondents to request under Section 20 of the Act that a question of title be referred to arbitration. The Deputy Director of Consolidation therefore it was urged, acted without jurisdiction when he directed that the question be referred to arbitration as prayed by the responents. Both these contentions were rejected by the learned Single Judge and he dismissed the appellant's petition.

(3.) In appeal also the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the contention that as the objection filed under Section 12 had not been presented by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 themselves or by a person duly authorised by them it could not be considered to be an objection at all. He urged also that the so called objection had not even been signed by the respondents 2 and 3 and they had not shown that Radha Kishan who had signed it held any authority on their behalf to do so. On that ground too the objection had no effect. It as therefore contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation was wrong in ordering that the objection be entertained and be decided on merits.