RANJEET Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18 Dec. 1998 (Annexure '1' to the writ petition), passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia (respondent No. 1) and further quashing the proceedings in pursuance thereof in Case No. 408 Tej Bahadur v. Ranjeet and in Case No. 409 Ranjeet v. Sarvjeet, pending before Consolidation Officer, Sikanderpur, Ballia.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage.

(3.) Undisputedly, the petitioners' preferred under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act only), the Consolidation Officer consolidated both the objections, and passed a single order on 14/03/1997 allowing the petitioners' objections. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent No. 2 preferred appeal before the Settlement Officer, Ballia, filed restoration applications, and during the pendency of appeals also preferred Revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent No. 1) under Section 48 of the Act along with application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. Both the restoration applications were dismissed for default on 31-8-1998. In appeal and revision, both the parties appeared. The petitioners also filed cross-appeal. Both the appeals were consolidated. In revision petition before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia, the petitioners on 8-12-1998 moved applications and raised specific plea challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and decide the revision in view of the pendency of the appeals before the Settlement Officer, Ballia. The petitioners contended that as the appeals were pending, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to decide the revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation overruled the petitioners' objection and allowed revision by the impugned order dated 18-12-1998, and has remanded the case for fresh adjudication before the Consolidation Officer on the petitioners' objections under Section 9 of the Act.