# Gaon Sabha through its Pradhan and others v. D.D.C. and another

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 38
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-12-03
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 36233 of 1991
- **Bench:** R.H. Zaidi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gaon-sabha-through-its-pradhan-and-others-v-d-d-c-and-another-40053
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1961-
Section 11- Right to appeal- whether can
be exercised by such person even who
was not party before the Consolidation
officer held- "No"

Held- Para 8

A reading of the aforesaid statutory
provision reveals that an appeal can be
filed only by a party to the proceedings.
It is well settled in law that right of
appeal,
revision
or review are the
statutory rights. They are conferred by
the Statutes and unless conferred, they
can not be availed by any person and no
authority
can
entertain
an
appeal,
revision
or
review
unless
the
said
authority is authorized by the Statute to
entertain the same. The Deputy Director
of Consolidation was, thus, right in
holding that the aforesaid petitioners
were not the party to the proceedings
and they had no right to file an appeal.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
prescribed and time limits provided in
Rule 12 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Rules, 1957 for filing written statements,
rejoinders documents etc. If necessary,
the proceedings may be held on day to
day basis under Rule 12 (4) of the Rules
and the case may be decided preferably
within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of reference.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 3.12.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.H. ZAIDI, J.

Writ Petition No. 36233 of 1991

Gaon Sabha through its Pradhan and
others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Dy.
Director
of
Consolidation
and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri D.K. Singh
Sri Sabhapati Tiwari
Sri Manoj Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Amresh Singh
S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1961-
Section 11- Right to appeal- whether can
be exercised by such person even who
was not party before the Consolidation
officer held- "No"

Held- Para 8

A reading of the aforesaid statutory
provision reveals that an appeal can be
filed only by a party to the proceedings.
It is well settled in law that right of
appeal,
revision
or review are the
statutory rights. They are conferred by
the Statutes and unless conferred, they
can not be availed by any person and no
authority
can
entertain
an
appeal,
revision
or
review
unless
the
said
authority is authorized by the Statute to
entertain the same. The Deputy Director
of Consolidation was, thus, right in
holding that the aforesaid petitioners
were not the party to the proceedings
and they had no right to file an appeal.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.H. Zaidi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners.

2. By means of this petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, petitioners pray for issuance of a
writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari
quashing
the
order
dated
26.11.1991 passed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation allowing the revision
filed by the respondents no. 2 under
Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, for short "the Act".

3. The relevant facts of the case
giving rise to the present petition, in brief,
are that the respondent no. 2, Jagdamba
filed an objection under Section 9-A of
the Act claiming Bhumidhari rights in the
land
comprising
in
Plot
No.
261
measuring 1 bigha 6 biswas. The
Consolidation
Officer
allowed
his
objection vide order dated 26.04.1977.
The petitioners thereafter challenged the
validity of the said order and filed an
appeal before the Settlement Officer
Consolidation. The Settlement Officer,
Consolidation allowed the appeal by his
judgment and order dated 23.08.1988.
The respondent no. 2 thereafter filed a
revision under Section 48 of the Act
before
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation has allowed the revision by
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Gaon Sabha through its Pradhan and others Vs. D.D.C. and another
39
the impugned order dated 26.11.1991,
hence the present petition.

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners vehemently urged that the
order passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation is illegal and, therefore, is
liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned
Standing Counsel supported the validity
of the impugned order. It was submitted
that the view taken by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation is legally
correct. The petitioners were not party to
the proceedings, therefore, they had no
right to file the appeal. The Deputy
Director of Consolidation did not commit
any error of law in allowing the revision
and setting aside the order passed by the
Settlement Officer Consolidation.

6. I have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the
parties and also perused the record.

7. It is not disputed that the
Consolidation Officer decided the case in
favour of respondent no. 2 and it is also
apparent that the appeal was filed by the
petitioners no. 2 to 11, in which the Gaon
Sabha was not the party. The petitioners
no. 2 to 11 were admittedly not party to
the proceedings nor they were authorized
by the Gaon Sabha to file the appeal.
Section 11 of the Act under which the
appeal was filed, provides as under:-

( Only relevant quoted )

"11.Appeal--(1) Any party to the
proceedings under Section 9-A, aggrieved
by an order of the Assistant Consolidation
Officer or the Consolidation Officer under
that section, may, within 21 days of the
order, file an appeal before the Settlement
Officer, Consolidation, who shall after
affording opportunity of being heard to
the parties concerned, give his decision
thereon which, except as otherwise
provided by or under this Act, shall be
final and not be questioned in any court of
law."

8. A reading of the aforesaid
statutory provision reveals that an appeal
can be filed only by a party to the
proceedings. It is well settled in law that
right of appeal, revision or review are the
statutory rights. They are conferred by the
Statutes and unless conferred, they can
not be availed by any person and no
authority can entertain an appeal, revision
or review unless the said authority is
authorized by the Statute to entertain the
same.
The
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation was, thus, right in holding
that the aforesaid petitioners were not the
party to the proceedings and they had no
right to file an appeal. The appeal filed by
them was legally not maintainable. He
was, thus, justified in allowing the
revision and setting aside the order passed
by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. I
do not find any illegality or infirmity in
the impugned order passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation.

9. The writ petition fails and is
hereby dismissed but without any order as
to costs.
---------
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 3.12.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51091 of 2002

Sheela Devi

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vivek Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226- scope
of
mandamus-
petitioner
seeking
direction-
for
enforcement
of
the
direction for appointment issued by the
Energy Minister- Petitioner neither has
enforceable
right
nor
legal
right-
mandamus cannot be issued.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. Petitioner by means of this writ
petition, sought for a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondent No. 2 to
consider
the
representation
of
the
petitioner dated 3.8.2002 addressed to
Ram Veer Upadhyaya, Energy Minister,
U.P.
Government
pursuant
to
the
direction dated 13.10.2002 issued by the
said minister. The said Minister issued a
direction to appoint the petitioner on a
particular post. Needless to say that this
will be an appointment contrary to the
rules. Petitioner has sought for a writ of
mandamus. A mandamus can only be
issued if the petitioner has an enforceable
right and respondents are under legal
obligation. None of the two ingredients
are there for issuance of mandamus.

2. In this view of the matter, no
relief can be granted to the petitioner. The
petition is dismissed being devoid of any
merit.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD :10.12.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21978 of 2002

Smt. Veena Agarwal

...Petitioner
Versus
Additional District Judge, Court NO.2
Moradabad and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prakash Krishna
Sri Kshitij Shailendra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.P. Shukla,
Sri R.K. Khanna,
Sri S.P. Srivastava

Code of Civil Procedure :- Order 10 rule 2
Election Petition filed on allegations of
corrupt practices and in counting in has
settlement
denied
the
allegations
regarding
irregularities
and
corrupt
practices - application under order 7 rule
11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint thrown
rejected held rejection order proper the
election petitioner has right of challenge
on all grounds can not be threes on
technical grounds.

Held ( Para 11)

A misplaced anxiety of the election
petitioner
to
press
her
claim
and
expediency of recount, will not take
away, abridge or destroyed the effect of
pleadings giving her cause of action to