RAM DAS Vs. D D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Director, allowing the revision of the opposite party, arising out of proceedings for allotment of chaks, in exercise of power under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is basically challenged as violative of principles of natural justice. It is urged that the order was passed altering his chak in revision filed by the opposite party without impleading or serving any notice on him. In the counter affidavit it is alleged that the order was passed in Petitioner's presence and after hearing him. From the order of the Deputy Director it is clear that twenty two revisions presumably of the entire village, were heard together. It is admitted that Petitioner had also filed a revision which was amongst twenty two. It is thus clear that Petitioner had notice of the date of hearing. And as all revisions were heard together there is no reason to think that the order was passed without hearing Petitioner. It is idle to contend that even if he was present in his own case the Deputy Director could not alter his chak in revision of opposite party of which the Petitioner had no notice nor could he properly look after his interest. Section 48 empowers the Deputy Director to pass the order after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the tenure holder. If the Petitioner was present and was heard the order is not liable to be set aside only because no notice was served on the Petitioner.

(2.) THE order was also challenged as being without jurisdiction as the opposite party did not prefer any appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer. It is true that normally revision should not be filed directly against an order, if appeal lies, but there is no bar express or implied either under Section 21 or Section 48 prohibiting a direct revision. Even Rule 111 which provides limitation for filing revision lays down that an application under Section 48 shall be presented by the applicant or his duly authorised agent to the District Deputy Director Consolidation within 50 days of the order against which the application is directed. It removes any doubt if there be any, and permits filing of revision against any order.

(3.) IN the result this petition fails and is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.