BANWARI SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.9.1995 purported to be an order under Section 35 of the Consolidation Act passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in favour of respondent no. 5, who has since appeared. She had not received not consideration and as such the sale deed ought to have been cancelled. It was also alleged that in fact the transaction was not in continuance of sale but a simple mutation and deceitfully the sale deed was drawn up. The Consolidation Officer accepted the objection raised by respondent no. 5 and refused mutation. The petitioners then filed an appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation where they succeeded with a finding that the petitioners had rightfully acquired title and were entitled to get their names mutated. Against this order, respondent no. 5 filed a revision application under Section 35 of the Act before the Director, Consolidation. Who delegated the hearing to the Deputy Director, Consolidation. This time, the Deputy Director, Consolidation, allowed the revision application setting aside the order of the Deputy Director passed in appeal.

(3.) The petitioners have challenged the proceedings on two counts. Firstly, on the pleadings, as made by respondent no. 5, that, in fact, mutation is sought to be without asking for delivering up of documents and cancelling the same on grounds of fraud and non-payment of consideration. This power exclusively vests in Civil Court and is not vested with the Consolidation Court. Secondly that once a revision was filed, the same has to be heard and disposed of by the Director himself. He could not transfer the matter to the Deputy Director, so as to permit a Deputy Director sitting in revision to set aside an order of another Deputy Director sitting in appeal. More so, there being no power authorising the Director to delegate the powers of revision to the Dy. Director documents are to be delivered up, considered and/or cancelled or the documents that may be voidable and where the necessity is to cancel the document and not mere declaration of its voidness, it is the jurisdiction only of the civil court.