Mulajim and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Deoria and Others

R.H. Zaidi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 8101984, contained in Annexure4 to the writ petition, passed by the respondent No. 2 and order dated 27111991, contained in Annexure8 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 1.

The relevant facts giving rise to the present petition are that before the Assistant Consolidation Officer a compromise was alleged to have been arrived at between the parties on the basis of which the case was decided. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer an appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation after hearing the parties and perusing the material on the record held that the Assistant Consolidation Officer had acted in excess of his jurisdiction in deciding the question of heirship, that there were cuttings in the order, which made it suspicious, that there were no signatures of two members of the Consolidation Committee and that the provisions of Rule 25A of the Rules, framed under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, were not followed. Having recorded the aforesaid findings, the appeal was allowed and the case was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh, by judgment and order dated 1241990. Challenging the validity of the said order the Respondent No. 3 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision by the impugned order dated 27111991 holding that there was no illegality in the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, hence the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and that the reasons given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in his order have not been met by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation has been set aside wholly arbitrarily and illegally. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent supported the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was urged that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was concluded by the findings of fact, which could not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I have considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

It is not disputed that the case was decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of alleged compromise. The validity of the alleged compromise was challenged by filing an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation recorded findings as noted above and those findings are based on the material on the record. It was held that the said compromise was not signed by the two members of the Consolidation Committee as provided under Rule 25A of the Rules framed under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The said finding was recorded taking into consideration, the affidavit filed by one of the members of the Consolidation Committee, namely, Jagannath Rai, who denied his signature on the compromise. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not touch the fact of filing of affidavit by Mr. Jagannath Rai and on the other hand stated that there were signatures of other members about whom the Settlement Officer Consolidation did not make a mention in his order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not look into the validity or correctness of the affidavit filed by Jagannath Rai and wholly arbitrarily came to the conclusion that the compromise arrived at between the parties before the Assistant Consolidation Officer was valid. It may be noted that other findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the questions involved in the case have not been reversed. The effect of the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was that the case would have been decided on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, therefore, there was no justification for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to uphold the validity of the compromise, the correctness of which was disputed by the parties and which was found illegal by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. There was no justification for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to allow the revision. In view of what has been stated above this petition deserves to be allowed.

This petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 27111991 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed. The case is remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh after following the procedure prescribed under law and after affording full opportunity of hearing and to produce evidence to the parties concerned. Petition allowed.