ASSADULLAH Vs. MOHD YOUSUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under the Letters Patent and is directed against an order passed by Jalal -ud -Din J. dated 21 -8 -70 sitting singly. By virtue of the order passed by the learned Judge the writ petition filed in this court was accepted and the order of the Director Consolidation dated 25 -7 -64 as also the subsequent orders were set aside.

(2.) IT is not necessary to go into the merits of the case because Mr. Vaishnavi appearing for the appellants has argued a pure point of law. It appears that on 1 -3 -3 -62 the respondent filed an application before the Assistant Consolidation Officer praying that the case may be decided on the basis of a compromise entered into between the par ­ties. Some time later the appellant filed an application questioning the validity of the compromise arrived at between the parties, but the Asstt. Consolidation "Officer did not pass any final order on this application filed by the respondent. Thereafter the respondents went up in revision before the Director Consolidation which was rejected on 24 -12 -63. Having failed to get any redress in the revision filed by the respondents, they moved the Director Consolidation for exercising his power of review. This application for review was accepted by the Director Consolidation who remanded the case for further inquiry by his order dated 25 -7 -64 which was the order impugned before the Single Judge. In obe ­dience to the order of the Director Consolidation the Settle ­ment Officer held an inquiry and found that the compromise was fraudulent and he accordingly set aside the order of »the Asstt. Consolidation Officer. Against this order the res ­pondents filed a revision before the Director Consolidation which was allowed and the matter was remanded again far further inquiry by order dated 15 -10 -66. A second revision was filed by the respondent before the Director Consoli ­dation which was rejected by order dated 31 -5 -68. The respondents then again moved the Director Consolidation for reviewing its order which was rejected. Thereafter the respondents came up with a writ petition before this court alleging that as the Director Consolidation had no power to review his order, therefore, the order passed by him on 25 -7 -64 and all other orders passed subsequent thereto were without jurisdiction and should be quashed.

(3.) FROM the facts narrated above two things would be clear. In the first place there was a finding of fact by the Settlement Officer that the compromise Was fraudulent and could not be acted upon and this finding was upheld in revision by the Director Consolidation. After the order of review was passed by the Director -Consolidation on 25 -7 -64 at no stage did the respondents ever raise the ques ­tion regarding the competence of the Director Consolida ­tion to review his own order. Secondly they participated in the inquiry which was ordered by the Director Consoli ­dation, and after having failed to get their grievance re ­dressed, they themselves moved a petition for review before the Director Consolidation and having failed there they came up to this Court. Thus in fact the respondents sought to challenge the order of review dated 25 -7 -64 passed about four years before they came up in writ to this court. Therefore it will be a serious question to be considered in this case whether the petition of the respondents should be dismissed on the question of laches. The learned Judge does not appear to have recorded any clear finding on this point, but the most important point on which the decision of the Iearned judge turns is the question as to whether or not the Director Consolidation had the power of review under the Jammu and Kashmir Consolidation of Holdings Act 1962 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The learned Judge had held that a review being a creature of the statute, there is no clear provision in the Act conferring powers of review on the Director Consolidation and, therefore, the order passed by him on 25 -7 -64 was without Jurisdiction and therefore was liable to be quashed.