# Kailash v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sitapur & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 416
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-07
- **Case number:** Writ- B No. 285 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kailash-v-dy-director-of-consolidation-sitapur-anr-53131
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953,
S. 48 - Revision and Reference - Order of
remand passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation under challenge - Scope of
S. 48 - Section 48 of the Act, 1953
provides ample power to the Director of
Consolidation
to
examine
the
correctness/legality/propriety
of
any
order, which includes the power to
examine any finding, whether of fact or
law,
recorded
by
any
subordinate
authority, as well as the power to reappreciate
any
oral
or
documentary
evidence. Held: For the purposes of
remanding the case to the Consolidation
Officer, the D.D.C. pointed out some errors
in the order(s) impugned before him,
which, in the view of the High Court,
ought to have been looked into in exercise
of power under Section 48 of the Act,
1953 by the D.D.C. himself, as the entire
material was available before him. (Para
34) (E-5)

Allowed

## Text

_Characters 0–39,914 of 86,793. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39914 for what follows._

416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
However, this time, when the matter is
remitted to the authority to decide a fresh,
the authority will look into afresh the claim
of the petitioner and decide the same after
getting
the
petitioner's
status
being
dependent upon deceased employee duly
verified. The authority will also examine
and will also get the petitioner filed
requisite papers about financial status of
her husband and other documents in the
event petitioner's husband is having
revenue sources and the same shall be also
examined accordingly. The authority before
arriving at any conclusion must decide
whether financial crisis in the family does
continue as on date so that she may be
offered compassionate appointment. It is
made clear that application of the petitioner
this time will not be rejected on the ground
that it was belatedly filed. The bar of 5
years as prescribed under Rules will not be
applicable in the instant case in its special
facts and circumstances. The appropriate
decision shall be taken by the authority
within a period of three months from the
date of presentation of certified copy of this
order.

22. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, this petition stands allowed
with no order as to cost.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 416
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Writ- B No. 285 of 2025

Kailash ...Petitioner
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sitapur &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ram Asarey Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953,
S. 48 - Revision and Reference - Order of
remand passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation under challenge - Scope of
S. 48 - Section 48 of the Act, 1953
provides ample power to the Director of
Consolidation
to
examine
the
correctness/legality/propriety
of
any
order, which includes the power to
examine any finding, whether of fact or
law,
recorded
by
any
subordinate
authority, as well as the power to reappreciate
any
oral
or
documentary
evidence. Held: For the purposes of
remanding the case to the Consolidation
Officer, the D.D.C. pointed out some errors
in the order(s) impugned before him,
which, in the view of the High Court,
ought to have been looked into in exercise
of power under Section 48 of the Act,
1953 by the D.D.C. himself, as the entire
material was available before him. (Para
34) (E-5)

Allowed

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ram Asarey Verma,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing
Counsel for the State/opposite party No.1
and perused the record.

2. Issuance of notice to opposite party
No.2 is hereby dispensed with liberty to the
opposite party No.2 to file an appropriate
recall application of this order, if aggrieved
by this order. It is for the following reason
(s)
:-
4 All. Kailash Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sitapur & Anr.
417

(a) without entering into the
merits of the case, in the light of settled
principle related to power of Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
(in
short
"D.D.C.") under Section 48 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in
short "Act of 1953"), this Court is
remanding the matter to D.D.C. for
deciding the same on merits;

 (b) issuance of notice would
unnecessary delay the proceedings in issue;
and
 (c) the settled principle related to
power of D.D.C. under Section 48 of the
Act of 1953 could not be refuted by the
present opposite parties.

3. The instant petition has been
preferred seeking following main relief:-

 "(i) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari
thereby quashing the order passed by the
opposite Party No.1 dated 14.02.2025 in
Revision
No.
308/2023
Computer
No.202354106400000308 under section
48(1) of U.P. C.H. Act "Nirmala Devi
Versus Kailash" contained as Annexure No.
1 to this writ petition.

 (ii) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
thereby commending the opposite Parties
not to disturbed the peaceful possession of
the petitioner over the land in question."

4. By means of this petition, the
petitioner has assailed the order dated
14.02.2025,
passed
in
Revision
No.308/2023 (Nirmala Devi Vs. Kailash),
under Section 48 (1) of the Act, 1953,
whereby the opposite party No.1/Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation/Additional
District
Magistrate
(F/R),
Sitapur,
remanded
the
matter
back
to
the
Consolidation
Officer
concerned
for
deciding the case afresh after providing
opportunity of hearing to the parties to the
litigation. The relevant portion of the order
dated 14.02.2025 is quoted hereunder for
ready reference:-

 "मैंने उभयपक्षों के नवद्वान अनधवक्ता की बहस सुनी
तथा ननगरानी एवं अधीनस्थ न्यायालय की पत्रावनलयों का
अवलोकन नकया, नजससे नवनदत होता है नक ग्राम हरनी परगना व
तहसील व नजला सीतापुर के आधार वषट खतौनी खाता संख्या -
69 पर वंशगोपाल, श्रीपाल, नशवराम, रामरतन पुत्रगण रघुबर दयाल
के नाम अंनकत है। वंशगोपाल पुत्र रघुबर मृतक हो गये, नववाद मृतक
वंशगोपाल के वाररसों को लेकर है। ननगरानीकताट श्रीमती ननमटला
देवी पत्नी स्व० रामरतन द्वारा अपने पक्ष में ननष्पानदत अपंजीकृत
वसीयत नदनांनकत 26.12.1998 के आधार पर मृतक वंशगोपाल
के स्थान पर नाम दजट करने की मांग की गयी है तथा प्रनतवादी
कैलाश पुत्र श्रीपाल द्वारा अपने पक्ष में ननष्पानदत पंजीकृत वसीयत
नदनांनकत 14.08.1997के आधार पर मृतक वंशगोपाल के स्थान
पर नाम दजट करने की मांग की गयी है। चकबन्दी अनधकारी द्वारा
पाररत आदेश नदनांक 13.01.2023 द्वारा मृतक वंशगोपाल के
स्थान पर पंजीकृत वसीयत नदनांक 14.08.1997 के आधार पर
नववानदत भ नम पर कैलाश पुत्र श्रीपाल का नाम दजट करते हुए
आपनत्त ननमटला देवी ननरस्त की गयी है, नजससे क्षुब्ध होकर ननमटला
देवी द्वारा अपीलीय न्यायालय पर अपील योनजत की गयी, जो
अपीलीय न्यायालय द्वारा नदनांक 25.08.2023 को अपील
ननरस्त कर दी गयी। अपीलीय न्यायालय द्वारा पाररत आदेश नदनांक
25.08.2023 से क्षुब्ध होकर ननगरानीकताट ननमटला देवी द्वारा
उक्त ननगरानी योनजत करके अपने स्वत्व के आधार पर मांग की गयी
है। इस प्रकार इस प्रकरण में दो वसीयतें हैं, उनके आधार पर
ननगरानीकताट एवं प्रनतवादी द्वारा वाद प्रनतवाद नकया जा रहा है।
उल्लेखनीय है नक नववानदत भ नम खाता संख्या 69 पर दजट खातेदार
वंशगोपाल, श्रीपाल, नशवराम, रामरतन आपस में सगे भाई है तथा
ननगरानीकताट श्रीमती ननमटला देवी, रामरतन की पत्नी है और
प्रनतवादी कैलाश श्रीपाल पुत्र रघुवर दयाल का पुत्र है। प्रनतवादी
कैलाश पुत्र श्रीपाल के पक्ष में वंशगोपाल पुत्र रघुवर दयाल द्वारा
ननष्पानदत पंजीकृत वसीयत नदनांक 14.08.1997 के हानसया
गवाह छत्रपाल नसंह पुत्र बल्देव नसंह तथा द सरे हानसया गवाह
प्रनतवादी कैलाश के सगे चाचा नशवराम पुत्र रघुवर दयाल ननवासी
हरनी है, परन्तु अवर न्यायालय में द सरे गवाह नशवराम द्वारा कैलाश
के पक्ष में ननष्पानदत वसीयत के सम्बन्ध में पक्षद्रोही हो जाने के
418 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
कारण प्रनतवादी कैलाश द्वारा पंजीकृत वसीयत 14.08.1997को
गवाह छत्रपाल नसंह के बयान द्वारा प्रमानणत कराया है और वसीयत
का अनभप्रमाणन होने पर अवर न्यायालय द्वारा आदेश पाररत नकया
गया है।

 जहााँ तक ननगरानीकताट ननमटला देवी द्वारा प्रस्तुत
अपंजीकृत वसीयत नदनांक 26.12.1998 के आधार पर
नववानदत भ नम पर अपना नाम दजट नकए जाने की मांग है। यह
वसीयत कैलाश द्वारा प्रस्तुत वसीयत के बाद की है, परन्तु अवर
न्यायालय में प्रनतवादी कैलाश पुत्र श्रीपाल द्वारा नजला नचनकत्सालय
सीतापुर के नचनकत्सानधकारी द्वारा नदनांक 26.02.1999 को
जारी मृत्यु प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्तुत नकया गया है, नजससे नवनदत है नक
ननगरानीकताट के पक्ष में ननष्पानदत अपंजीकृत वसीयत नदनांक
26.12.1998 से लगभग 9 नदन प वट नदनांक 16.12.1998
को वंशगोपाल पुत्र रघुवर दयाल को नजला अस्पताल सीतापुर में
भती कराया गया था, नजनका देहान्त नदनांक 01.01.1999 को
हो गया। इस प्रकार इससे स्पष्ट होता है नक वसीयत के नदन,
नदनांनकत 26.12.1998 को वंशगोपाल अस्पताल में भती थे,
नजनका देहान्त नदनांक 01.01.1999 को हो गया। इस प्रकार
वंशगोपाल पुत्र रघुवर को प्रसन्न नचत, स्वस्थ बुनि की अवस्था में
वसीयत नदनांक 16.12.1998 को उल्लेनखत है, सन्देहात्मक
और नवश्वसनीय प्रतीत नहीं होता है।

 इस वाद में एक आपनत्त श्रीमती रानी पत्नी नशवराम
द्वारा अवर न्यायालय में नदनांक 17.01.2019 को प्रस्तुत करके
मांग की है नक वंशगोपाल मृतक हो गये हैं, उन्होंने अपने जीवनकाल
में कोई वसीयत नहीं नलखी है, कैलाश पुत्र श्रीपाल तथा श्रीमती
ननमटला देवी पत्नी रामरतन द्वारा प्रस्तुत वसीयतें वंशगोपाल की मृत्यु
के बाद फजी तैयार की गयी है। वंशगोपाल की मृत्यु के समय
वंशगोपाल के भाई श्रीपाल, नशवराम व रामरतन जीनवत थे, इस
कारण वरासत के आधार पर वंशगोपाल की सम्पनत्त के जायज
वाररस श्रीपाल, नशवराम व रामरतन हुए और श्रीपाल की मृत्यु के
बाद उनकी सम्पनत्त के उत्तरानधकारी नशवसागर, कैलाश, नशवराम
की मृत्यु के उपरान्त उत्तारानधकारी रानी व रामरतन की मृत्यु के बाद
उनकी पत्नी ननमटला देवी हैं। इस प्राथटना - पत्र का नवरोध कैलाश व
श्रीमती ननमटला देवी द्वारा नकया गया, परन्तु आगे श्रीमती रानी द्वारा
इस पर कोई पैरवी नहींें की गयी। यहां पर उल्लेखनीय यह है नक
नशवराम पुत्र रघुवर दयाल की पत्नी रानी देवी व सगे भाई रामरतन
की पत्नी ननगरानीकताट ननमटला देवी आपस में सगी बहनें हैं और इसी
ररश्ते के चलते ऐसा प्रतीत होता है नक मृतक खातेदार वंशगोपाल
पुत्र रघुवर दयाल की भ नम को प्राप्त करने की नीयत से ननमटला देवी
के साथ नमलकर एक अन्य वसीयत बनवाई गयी और कैलाश के
पक्ष में ननष्पानदत पंजीकृत वसीयत नजसमें नशवराम हानसया गवाह हैं
तथा कैलाश के सगे चाचा हैं, के द्वारा कैलाश के पक्ष में ननष्पानदत
वसीयत का नवरोध नकया जाने लगा। गवाह नशवराम का वसीयत
नदनांक 14.08.1997 पर लगे ननशानी अंग ठे का अंगुष्ठ नवशेषज्ञ
द्वारा दो बार परीनक्षत कराया गया है, नजसमें नशवराम के सम्बन्ध में
दोनो अंगुष्ठ नवशेषज्ञ द्वारा आख्याएं भी नवरोधाभाषी हैं।

 उपरोक्त नववेचना के आधार पर यह नसध्द होता है
नक मृतक वंशगोपाल पुत्र रघुवर दयाल की भ नम के सम्बन्ध में दो
वसीयतें हैं, दोनों ही वसीयतें संनदग्धता नलए हुए हैं। यद्यनप वसीयत
नदनांक 14.08.1997 को द सरे गवाह छत्रपाल नसंह के द्वारा
अवर न्यायालय में अनभप्रमाणन कराते हुए वसीयत के आधार पर
कैलाश पुत्र श्रीपाल का नाम अंनकत नकया गया है, परन्तु दोनों
वसीयतें संनदग्ध की पररनध में हैं। प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में साक्ष्यों की
आवश्यकता है। अतः वाद के न्यायनहत में वाद चकबन्दी अनधकारी
अनन्तम अनभलेख - प्रथम के न्यायालय पर प्रत्यावनतटत नकया जाना
उनचत प्रतीत होता है नक वह दोनों वसीयतों के सम्बन्ध में गहन
परीक्षण करते हुए तथा उभयपक्षों द्वारा साक्ष्य आनद प्राप्त कर वाद का
ननणटय गुणदोष के आधार पर करें। तदनुसार ननगरानीकताट द्वारा प्रस्तुत
ननगरानी स्वीकार नकये जाने योग्य है। अतः आदेश हुआ नक -

 आदेश
 उपरोक्त नववेचना के आधार पर ननगरानीकताट ननमटला
देवी पत्नी स्व रामरतन ननवासी ग्राम हरनी परगना सीतापुर तहसील
सीतापुर वतटमान तहसील महोली नजला सीतापुर द्वारा प्रस्तुत ननगरानी
स्वीकार की जाती है। अपीलीय न्यायालय द्वारा पाररत आदेश नदनांक
25.08.2023 तथा चकबन्दी अनधकारी द्वारा पाररत आदेश
नदनांक 13.01.2023 ननरस्त नकया जाता है। वाद चकबन्दी
अनधकारी अनन्तम अनभलेख - प्रथम के न्यायालय में इस ननदेश के
साथ प्रत्यावनतटत नकया जाता है नक वह वाद में प्रस्तुत वसीयत
नदनांक 14.08.1997 व 26.12.1998 के सम्बन्ध में गहन
परीक्षण करते हुए तथा साक्ष्य आनद लेकर वाद का ननस्तारण
ननयमानुसार / नवनध अनुक ल गुणदोष के आधार पर करें। पक्ष
चकबन्दी अनधकारी अनन्तम अनभलेख - प्रथम के न्यायालय पर
नदनांक 28.02.2025 को उपनस्थत हों। आदेश की एक प्रनत
चकबन्दी अनधकारी अनन्तम अनभलेख - प्रथम के न्यायालय को
भेजी जाय । पत्रावली बाद आवश्यक कायटवाही संनचत
अनभलेखागार हो।

 ह० अपठनीय
 ( नीतीस कुमार नसंह)
4 All. Kailash Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sitapur & Anr.
419
 अपर नजलानधकारी ( नव० / रा०) /उप संचालक
चकबन्दी
 सीतापुर "

5. From the order impugned dated
14.02.2025, including the above quoted
portion of the same it is apparent that the
D.D.C. has to provide only proper
opportunity of hearing to the parties to the
litigation and thereafter he has to pass a
reasoned order on each issue.

6. While assailing the impugned
order dated 14.02.2025, learned counsel for
the petitioner stated that the order of
remand, under challenge, dated 14.02.2025
is unsustainable in the eye of law, in view
of the various pronouncements/judgments
and language considered under Section 48
of the Act of 1953. As such, indulgence of
this Court is required in the matter.

7. In continuation, it is further
stated that all the material was available
before
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation and the Act, 1953 itself
provides wide power to the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, as appears from
the language considered under Section 48
of the Act of 1953, including the
explanation (s) therein and he ought to have
decided the case of the parties on merits
after providing proper opportunity of
hearing to them. Thus, the opposite party
No.1 erred in law and fact while passing
the order impugned dated 14.02.2025.

8. Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey,
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
State/opposite party No.1 assisted this
Court on the issue involved in the present
petition. He also could not dispute the
power of opposite party No.1 under Section
48 of the Act of 1953.

9. Considered the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

10. In order to decide the present
petition, this Court feels it appropriate to
reproduce Section 48 of the Act of 1953,
which is as under :-

 "[48. Revision and reference. -
(1) The Director of Consolidation may call
for and examine the record of any case
decided or proceedings taken by any
subordinate authority for the purpose of
satisfying himself as to the regularity of the
proceedings; or as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any order] [other
than an interlocutory order] passed by
such authority in the case or proceedings,
may, after allowing the parties concerned
an opportunity of being heard, make such
order in the case or proceedings as he
thinks fit.

 (2) Powers under sub-section (1)
may be exercised by the Director of
Consolidation also on a reference under
sub-section (3).

 (3) Any authority subordinate to
the Director of Consolidation may, after
allowing
the
parties
concerned
an
opportunity of being heard, refer the record
of any case or proceedings to the Director
of Consolidation for action under subsection (1).

 [Explanation. -] [(1)] For the
purposes
of
this
section,
Settlement
Officers,
Consolidation,
Consolidation
Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers,
Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals
shall be subordinate to the Director of
Consolidation.
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 Explanation
(2)
-
For
the
purposes of this section the expression
'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or
proceeding, means such order deciding any
matter arising in such case or proceeding
or collateral thereto as does not have the
effect to finally disposing of such case or
proceeding.

 [Explanation (3). - The power
under
this
section
to
examine
the
correctness, legality or propriety of any
order includes the power to examine any
finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by
any
subordinate
authority,
and
also
includes the power to re-appreciate any
oral or documentary evidence.]

11. At this stage, it is also
appropriate
to
refer
various
pronouncements on the scope/power of
Deputy Director of Consolidation under
Section 48 of the Act of 1953.

12.
In
the
judgment
dated
24.09.2014 passed by this Court in the case
of Ram Udit v. D.D.C. reported in
MANU/UP/1768/2014,
this
Court
considering the Scheme of the Act of 1953
and Section 48 observed as under:-

 "10. The Scheme of the statute
contemplates a tentative plan, inviting
objection from stake-holder, i.e. tenure
holder, and, after considering the same,
finalization of plan, i.e., allotment of
Chaks. There against appellate power has
been conferred upon SOC under Section
21(2) of Act 1953. The power which is
exercised by DDC, is termed "Revision and
reference" under Section 48 of Act, 1953.

 11. The original Section 48, as
enacted initially, read as under:

 "48.
Revision.-Director
of
Consolidation may call for the record of
any case if the Officer (other than the
Arbitrator) by whom the case was decided
appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not
vested in him by law or to have failed to
exercise jurisdiction so vested, or to have
acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction
illegally or with substantial irregularity
and may pass such orders in the case as it
thinks fit."

 12.
It
was
amended
by
substitution by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1956 as
under:

 "48. Powers of Director of
Consolidation to call for records and to
revise
orders.-The
Director
of
Consolidation may call for the record of
any case or proceeding if the Officer (other
than the Arbitrator) by whom the case was
decided or proceeding taken appears to
have exercised jurisdiction not vested in
him by law or to have failed to exercise
jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in
the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or
with substantial irregularity and may pass
such orders in the case as it thinks fit."

 (amendment in bold)

 13. Within a short period, it was
again amended by U.P. Amendment Act
No. 38 of 1958 as under:

 "48. Revision.-The Director of
Consolidation may call for the record of
any case decided or proceedings taken,
where he is of opinion that a Deputy
Director, Consolidation has -

 (i) exercised jurisdiction not
vested in him in law, or
4 All. Kailash Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sitapur & Anr.
421
 (ii) failed to exercise jurisdiction
vested in him, or

 (iii) acted in the exercise of his
jurisdiction illegally or with substantial
irregularity, and as a result of which,
substantial injustice appears to have been
caused to a tenure-holder and he may 4,
after affording reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned, pass such
order in the case or proceeding as he
thinks fit."

 (amendment in bold)

 14. Section 48 underwent a minor
amendment vide Section 39 of U.P.
(Amendment) Act No. VIII of 1963. An
Explanation was added by Act No. 4 of
1969 with retrospective effect. Major
amendment came to be made by U.P. Act
No. 20 of 1982 inasmuch as, in sub
section(1) the words "other than an
interlocutory order" were inserted w.e.f.
10.11.1980. The explanation inserted in
1969 was re-numbered as Explanation- (1)
by Act No. 20 of 1982 w.e.f. 10.11.1980
and then Explanation(2) was added w.e.f.
10.11.1980.

 15. Presently, Section 48 reads as
under:

 "48. Revision and reference.-(1)
The Director of Consolidation may call for
and examine the record of any case decided
or proceedings taken by any subordinate
authority for the purpose of satisfying
himself as to the regularity of the
proceedings; or as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any order [other
than interlocutory order] passed by such
authority in the case of proceedings and
may, after allowing the parties concerned
an opportunity of being heard, make such
order in the case of proceedings as he
thinks fit.

 (2) Powers under Sub-section (1)
may be exercised by the Director of
Consolidation also on a reference under
Sub-section (3).

 (3) Any authority subordinate to
the Director of Consolidation may, after
allowing
the
parties
concerned
an
opportunity of being heard, refer the record
of any case or proceedings to the Director
of
Consolidation
for
action
under
subsection (1).

 Explanation (1)-For the purposes
of
this
section,
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation,
Consolidation
Officers,
Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator
and
Consolidation
Lekhpals
shall
be
subordinate to the Director of Consolidation.

 Explanation (2). For the purpose of
this section the expression 'interlocutory order'
in relation to a case or proceedings, means
such order deciding any matter arising in such
case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does
not have the effect of finally disposing of such
case or proceeding.

 Explanation (3).-The power under
this section to examine the correctness, legality
or propriety of any order includes the power to
examine any finding, whether of fact or law,
recorded by any subordinate authority, and
also includes the power to re-appreciate any
oral or documentary evidence."

 (emphasis added)

 16. Section 48 as it was initially
enacted came to be considered in Sher
Singh (dead) Vs. Joint Director of
Consolidation
and
others
422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
MANU/SC/0514/1978 : (1978) 3 SCC 172.
The Court observed that a bare reading
show that it is pari materia with Section
115
CPC
which
confines
revisional
jurisdiction of High Court to cases of
illegal or irregular exercise or non exercise
or illegal assumption of jurisdiction by
subordinate Courts. If a subordinate court
is found to possess the jurisdiction to
decide a matter, it cannot be said to
exercise it illegally or with' material
irregularity even it decides the matter
wrongly. Relying on the cases interpreting
Section 115 CPC, the Court held that
whatever
revisional jurisdiction
was
available to High Court under Section
115, the same was the scope of revisional
jurisdiction of DDC under Section 48 and
it has no jurisdiction to go into errors of
facts. The Court said that an erroneous
decision on a question of fact or of law
reached by subordinate court which has
no relation to question of jurisdiction of
that court, cannot be corrected by High
Court under Section 115 CPC and same
would apply to DDC under Section 48.
The
Court
further
observed
that
consolidation authorities subordinate to
Joint
Director
possess
plenary
jurisdiction and competence to go into
the question of correctness or otherwise
of entries in revenue records. If there are
concurrent findings of fact of two Courts,
which do not leave any ground, as
observed
above,
in
revisional
jurisdiction,
interference
by
Joint
Director of Consolidation would not be
competent. In para 16 of the judgment, the
Court said:

 "Thus
the
subordinate
Consolidation authorities not having acted
illegally in exercising their jurisdiction, the
Joint Director of Consolidation was not
competent to interfere with their decisions."
 17. Section 48 as amended in
1963 then came to be considered in
Ramakant Singh Vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation,
U.P.
and
others
MANU/UP/0026/1975 : AIR 1975 All 126
but therein the Court while considering
Section 48(1), to the question, whether
Deputy Director of Consolidation, once has
called for record, is it incumbent on him to
decide the matter on merit or it can decline
and dismiss the revision on any technical
ground like lack of impleadment of proper
party etc.

 18. Amended section 48 in 1963,
then came to be considered in Shanti
Prakash Gupta Vs. DDC 1981 SCC (Suppl)
73. Therein the Court observed that Section
48 as then stood, vide amendment of 1963,
was
wider
than
Section
115
CPC.
However, it proceeded to hold that
Director should not lightly interfere with
discretion of C.O. unless the order sought
to be reversed is palpably erroneous or
likely to cause miscarriage of justice. To
the same effect and imposing similar
restriction, observations were made in Ram
Dular Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation
MANU/SC/1004/1994 : (1994) Supp(2)
SCC 198 as under:

 "It is clear that the Director had
power to satisfy himself as to the legality of
the proceedings or as to the correctness of
the proceedings or correctness, legality or
propriety
of
any
order
other
than
interlocutory
order
passed
by
the
authorities
under
the
Act.
But
in
considering the correctness, legality or
propriety of the order or correctness of the
proceedings or regularity thereof it cannot
assume to itself the jurisdiction of the
original
authority
as
a
fact-finding
authority by appreciating for itself of those
facts de novo. It has to consider whether
4 All. Kailash Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sitapur & Anr.
423
the legally admissible evidence had not
been considered by the authorities in
recording a finding of fact or law or the
conclusion reached by it is based on no
evidence,
any
patent
illegality
or
impropriety had been committed or there
was any procedural irregularity, which
goes to the root of the matter, had been
committed in recording the order or
finding."

 19. A slight different observation
came to be made in Preetam Singh Vs.
Assistant Director of Consolidation and
others MANU/SC/0742/1996 : (1996) 2
SCC 270 where the Court said:

 "When the matter was in revision
before
the
Assistant
director
(Consolidation), he had the entire matter
before him and his jurisdiction was
unfettered. While in seisin of the matter in
his revisional jurisdiction, he was in
complete control and in position to test the
correctness of the order made by the
Settlement Officer (Consolidation) effecting
remand. In other words, in exercise of
revisional
jurisdiction
the
Assistant
Director (Consolidation) could examine the
finding recorded by the Settlement Officer
as to the abandonment of the land in
dispute by those tenants who had been
recorded at the crucial time in the Khasra
of 1359 Fasli. That power as a superior
court
the
Assistant
Director
(Consolidation) had, even if the remand
order of the Settlement Officer had not
been specifically put to challenge in
separate and independent proceedings. It is
noteworthy that the Court of the Assistant
Director (Consolidation) is a court of
revisional jurisdiction otherwise having
suo moto power to correct any order of the
subordinate officer. In this situation the
Assistant Director (Consolidation) should
not have felt fettered in doing complete
justice between the parties when the entire
matter was before him. The war of
legalistics fought in the High Court was of
no material benefit to the appellants. A
decision on merit covering the entire
controversy was due from the Assistant
Director (Consolidation). (para-6)

 (emphasis added)

 20. Yet in Ram Avtar Vs. Ram
Dhani, MANU/SC/0034/1997 : AIR 1997
SC 107, the Court, in para 8, observed:

 "This
Court
has
repeatedly
pointed out that howsoever wide the power
under statutory revision may be in contrast
to Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, still while exercising that power
the authority concerned cannot act as a
Court of appeal so as to appreciate the
evidence on record for recording findings
on question of fact."

 21. These observations again put
the things in the shape bringing the scope
of jurisdiction under Section 48 nearer to
jurisdiction as contained in Section 115
CPC.

 22. Section 48(1) as it stood
before its amendment in 1963 and
subsequent thereto, both came to be noticed
in Sheshmani and another vs. The Deputy
Director of Consolidation, District Basti,
U.P. and others MANU/SC/0079/2000 :
2000(2) SCC 523. Referring to earlier
decision in Sher Singh Vs. Joint Director of
Consolidation (supra) and Ram Dular Vs.
DDC
(supra)
and
the
intervening
amendment,
the
Court
followed
the
observations made in Ram Dular, as
noticed above and then upheld the order
passed by DDC holding that orders of CO.
424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and Additional Settlement Consolidation
Officer were against settled principles of
law, therefore, DDC was justified in
exercise of revisional power, for coming to
a different conclusion.

 23. It is in these circumstances,
Legislature
intervened
by
inserting
Explanation-3, by U.P. Act No. 3 of 2002,
giving effect from 10.11.1980 but in Karan
Singh Vs. DDC 2003(94) RD 382 this
Court said that even after addition of
Explanation-3, DDC cannot substitute its
own finding in place of subordinate
authorities.

 24.
Recent
decision
in
Jagdamba Prasad Vs. Kripa Shankar
MANU/SC/0274/2014 : (2014) 5 SCC
707 which has also considered Section
48 as amended in 1963, in para 15,
following the earlier decision in Sher
Singh
Vs.
Joint
Director
of
Consolidation (supra) it has said:

 "15. According to the legal
principle laid down by this Court in the
case mentioned above, the power of the
Revisional Authority under Section 48
of the Act only extends to ascertaining
whether the subordinate courts have
exceeded their jurisdiction in coming to
the
conclusion.
Therefore,
if
the
Original and Appellate Authorities are
within their jurisdiction, the Revisional
Authority cannot exceed its jurisdiction to
come to a contrary conclusion by
admitting new facts either in the form of
documents or otherwise, to come to the
conclusion. Therefore, we answer point
no. 1 in favour of the appellants by
holding that the Revisional Authority
exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 48
of the Act by admitting documents at
revision stage and altering the decision
of the subordinate courts."

 25. It is thus difficult to observe
that Explanation III to Section 48 has
brought the scope of revision at par with
the appellate jurisdiction so as to assess
the evidence on pure issue of fact and
recording findings de novo. Revisional
power is not a power of first or second
appellate Court which are final Courts of
fact and findings recorded therein would
be possible to be interfered under Section
48 on the ground discussed in Ram Dular
(Supra),
Sheshmani
(Supra)
and
Jagdamba Prasad (supra).

 26. Impugned orders in these
matters are all subsequent to 1980 and,
therefore, could be governed by aforesaid
provision as it is. Sub Section (1) of
Section 48 in effect deals revisional
power while sub sections (2) and (3)
relate to reference made by an authority
subordinate to Director of Consolidation.
From a bare and plain reading of Section
48(1) it is evident that Director of
Consolidation has been given power to
call for and examine any case decided or
proceedings taken by any subordinate
authority for the purpose of satisfying
himself (i) to the regularity of the
proceedings and (ii) to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any order."

13.
In
the
judgment
dated
18.06.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.
436 (Consolidation) of 2015 (Prem Nath
and others vs. D.D.C., Barabanki and
others), this Court observed as under:-

 "Appeal under Section 11 and
Revision under Section 48 of Act 1953
are two distinct statutory remedies. The
scope of the two remedies is also
4 All. Kailash Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sitapur & Anr.
425
different. Powers of revision under
Section 48 and appeal under Section 11
are distinct. The appellate powers are of
wider amplitude. Howsoever wide the
power under Section 48 may be, even after
amendment made in the year 2002, it does
not permit the revisional authority to
summon the records and decide the merits
of an appeal pending before the SOC under
Section 11 without the appellate authority
having passed any order deciding the
appeal or an order deciding any matter
which has the effect of disposing of the
appeal. Such action is destructive of the
statutory remedy of appeal under the Act
1953. No doubt, the DDC has suo moto
powers under Section 48 but it does not
mean that he can call for the record of
appeal pending before the SOC and decide
the same on merits without the appellate
authority
having
decided
the
same.
Reference may be had in this regard to a
decision of this Court in the case of Ranjeet
and
others
Vs.
Dy.
Director
of
Consolidation Ballia and others reported in
1999(90) RD 363 wherein during pendency
of appeal against an order of subordinate
authority a revision was filed before the
DDC under Section 48 against the same
order. Reliance was placed by the
respondents therein upon various decision
including a Full Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Ramakant Singh Vs.
Deputy Director of Consolidation, reported
in 1974 (suppl.) RD 262. This Court, after
considering the said Full Bench and other
decisions, held as under:--

 "6. The facts of these three cases
relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondent no. 2 are different, in all these
three
cases
the
appeal
before
the
Settlement Officer was not pending, in the
instant case, as seen above the appeal and
cross-appeals were pending before the
Settlement Officer (Consolidation), the
petitioners specifically urged before the
Deputy Director of Consolidation that in
view of the pendency of the appeal, the
revision was not maintainable. The present
case is a case where the jurisdiction
exercised by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation is destructive of the statutory
remedy of appeal and it is a fit case which
calls for interference in petitions under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India."

 In another case reported in [2007
(102) RD 250] Chhakku Ram and others
Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Varanasi and others a revision was filed
under Section 48 challenging the order of
SOC dismissing the appeal on the ground
of limitation. The issue was as to whether
while considering validity of the order
passed by the SOC the revisional authority
could have considered and decided the
merits of the controversy also. This Court
again after considering the Full Bench
decision in Ramakant Singh's case (supra)
held as under:--

 "3. Counsel for the respondents
Sri Sankatha Rai assisted by Sri Pradip Rai
made two submissions on the point of
maintainability. First that even if the
Deputy Director of Consolidation has not
given any specific finding regarding the
condonation of delay the delay would be
deemed to have been condoned by him
when he entered into the merits of the case.
On this point he relied a decision in M. B.
Shah V. B. N. Agarwal (AIR 2002 SC 451).
This decision has no application to the
present case. It is not in dispute that the
revision, which was filed by respondent No.
2 was within time against the order of the
Settlement Officer Consolidation. It was the
appeal before the Settlement Officer
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Consolidation, which had been dismissed
on the ground of limitation. It is also
submitted that the record of the case was
before
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation and he could, therefore,
decide the case on merits. In support
reliance is placed upon the Full Bench
decision of this Court in Ramakant Singh
V. Deputy Director of Consolidation (AIR
1975 Alld. 126). In that case the question
referred was whether after the record is
called for under section 48 the Deputy
Director of Consolidation can dismiss the
revision
for
non-impleadment
of
a
necessary party in the memorandum of
revision or he can decide the case after
hearing the party not impleaded. It was
held that after the record has been
examined
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation can exercise the revisional
jurisdiction suo moto and take appropriate
decision after hearing the affected parties.
The Full Bench further holds that if the
revision application is not defective the
exercise of the revisional jurisdiction shall
be at the instance of the parties and not suo
moto. In the present case the revision was
not defective. The exercise of jurisdiction
was therefore at the instance of the
petitioner and not suo moto. The Deputy
Director of Consolidation was therefore
required to examine the correctness of the
order
of
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation dismissing the appeal on the
ground of limitation, which was the order
challenged and not the merits of the chak
allotment. Counsel for the petitioners relied
upon a decision of this Court in Bashir
Ahmad Khan V. Deputy Director of
Consolidation,
Ghazipur
and
others
(2005(98) RD 378) in which this Court in
similar circumstances has taken the view
that the proper course for the Deputy
Director of Consolidation in a revision
against an order of Settlement Officer
Consolidation dismissing the appeal on the
question of limitation is to examine the
correctness of that order. It appears from
the facts and circumstances of this case too
the proper course to be adopted by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation was to
examine the correctness of the order of the
Settlement Officer Consolidation, which he
failed to do. As regards the merits also I
find that the order of the Deputy Director
of Consolidation cannot be sustained. The
contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the loss, which would be
occasioned to the petitioners by the
modification in the chaks made by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation has not
been considered. Reliance is placed upon
the averments made in paragraph 6 of the
writ petition in which it is stated that there
is a house of the petitioner No. 2 adjoining
plot No. 368. If it be true that the petitioner
No. 2 does have his house adjoining plot
No. 368 it would be a circumstance in
favour of the petitioner No. 2 for allotment
of a chak near his abadi. No opinion,
however, is being expressed by this Court
upon this point as it is proposed to remand
the case to the Deputy Director of
Consolidation for fresh decision."

 In the case at hand there has
been no adjudication by the SOC either of
the
appeal
in
entirety
or
of
any
matter/issue. Even after amendment in the
year 2002 and addition of explanation 3 to
Section 48 the revisional authority is not
empowered to adopt the course of action as
done by him in this case. Explanation 3
only empowers him to enter into the
question of fact to examine any finding
recorded by the subordinate authority
whether on fact or law and in this context it
includes the power to re-appreciate the
evidence for the purpose of examination of
correctness, legality or propriety of any
4 All. Kailash Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sitapur & Anr.
427
such finding. It does not mean that the
revisional authority can call for the records
of the appellate authority and decide the
appeal himself in exercise of his revisional
powers without any finding having been
recorded by the appellate authority or
appeal
itself
having
been
decided.
Reference may be made in this regard to
the pronouncement made by this Court in
the case of Karan Singh (Dead) Through L.
Rs. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Aligarh and others, reported in [2003(94)
RD 382 wherein after noticing the decision
of the apex court in Gaya Deen (D)
through L.Rs and others Vs. Hanuman
Prasad (D) through L. Rs and others
reported in [2001 (92) RD 79 (SC) as also
the amendment of 2002 the Court held in
para 6 as under:--

 "...... The amendment of Section
48 of the Act has widened the scope of the
powers
of
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation. It has given power to him to
reappraise the evidence but it nowhere
provided that the Deputy Director of
Consolidation will have jurisdiction to
reverse the findings recorded by the
authorities below and can substitute his
own findings. The Apex Court in Gaya Din
(D) through L.Rs. and others Vs. Hanuman
Prasad (D) through L.Rs. and others
[(2001(92) RD 79 (SC)] specifically laid
down
that
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation has got no jurisdiction to act
as the Consolidation Officer or the
Settlement Officer Consolidation, otherwise
there will remain no difference in the
powers of the Consolidation Officer, the
Settlement Officer Consolidation and the
Deputy Director of Consolidation while
dealing with the cases originally, in appeal
and revision. In case the Deputy Director
of Consolidation was of the opinion that the
findings recorded were bad in law, he
could set aside the same after reappraisal
of the evidence and could remand the case
for decision afresh."

 Reference may also be made to
another decision of this Court in the case of
Bashir Ahmad Khan (D) through L. Rs. V.
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others reported in 2005(1) AWC 924 (Alld)
wherein the question which arose for
consideration was regarding jurisdiction of
the revisional authority to decide a revision
challenging the order of the appellate
authority dismissing the appeal on the
ground of limitation, on merits. A learned
single Judge of this Court referring to a
Division Bench judgment of this Court in
the case of Tirath V. Joint Director of
Consolidation reported in 1985 RD 276
held as under:--

 "10. A Division Bench of this
Court vide judgment in the case of Tirath
V. Deputy Director of Consolidation
(supra), answered the question in negative.
While
repealing
the
contention
that
authority exercising the power under
Section 48 of the Act have very wide power
including suo moto power and can look
into the record and if there is any defect it
can be corrected by him, it was observed by
the Division Bench as follows: