# Kalim Ullah v. D.D.C. Sultanpur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 907
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-19
- **Case number:** Consolidation No. 1436 of 2021
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kalim-ullah-v-d-d-c-sultanpur-ors-46714
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Power to recall an exparte order - A Tribunal or body should be
considered to be endowed with such
ancillary or incidental powers as are
necessary
to
discharge
its
functions
effectively for the purpose of doing justice
between the parties. Although there is no
express provision in the Act or Rules framed
there under giving the Industrial Tribunal
jurisdiction to set-aside its ex parte award,
Tribunal should be considered as invested with
such incidental or ancillary powers unless there
is any indication in the statute to the contrary.
(Para 9)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-3)

Precedent distinguished:

Smt. Anar Kali & ors. Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation & ors., 1997 (15) LCD 921 (Para 3)

Precedent followed:

Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs Central Government
Industrial Tribunal, 1980 (Supp.) SCC 420 (Para 9)

Present petition assails the order dated
12.01.2021, passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Sultanpur.

## Text

1 All. Kalim Ullah Vs. D.D.C. Sultanpur & Ors.
907
no final decision has been taken in the
matter by the authorities. It further appears
from the perusal of the record that in
pursuance of the order of the High Court
dated 12.9.1979, the Deputy Director of
Consolidation has dismissed the revision
filed by Riyaz and Sohrab on 10.9.1987.
The application for setting aside the order
was also dismissed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation. Thus, the order passed on
31.7.1972 is final.

18. Since the matter is pending
consideration before the authorities from
last about 50 years, in the special facts and
circumstances of the case, no useful
purpose will be served in remitting the
matter back before the authorities.

19. In view of the same, the
application submitted by the petitioner
under Rule 109 is liable to be allowed and
the authorities are directed to make the
necessary Amal Daramad in the revenue
record within a period of two months from
the date of presentation of the copy of the
order.

20. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2021)01ILR A907
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Consolidation No. 1436 of 2021

Kalim Ullah ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. Sultanpur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Brijesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Power to recall an exparte order - A Tribunal or body should be
considered to be endowed with such
ancillary or incidental powers as are
necessary
to
discharge
its
functions
effectively for the purpose of doing justice
between the parties. Although there is no
express provision in the Act or Rules framed
there under giving the Industrial Tribunal
jurisdiction to set-aside its ex parte award,
Tribunal should be considered as invested with
such incidental or ancillary powers unless there
is any indication in the statute to the contrary.
(Para 9)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-3)

Precedent distinguished:

Smt. Anar Kali & ors. Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation & ors., 1997 (15) LCD 921 (Para 3)

Precedent followed:

Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs Central Government
Industrial Tribunal, 1980 (Supp.) SCC 420 (Para 9)

Present petition assails the order dated
12.01.2021, passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Sultanpur.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
respondent no.1.

2. Under challenge is the order dated
12.01.2021 passed by learned Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, a
copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ
petition, by which, upon an application
moved by the private respondents, the exparte order dated 06.11.2015 has been
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recalled and notices have been issued to the
parties concerned fixing a particular date.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that taking into consideration the
law laid down by the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Smt. Anar Kali and
others
vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation and others - 1997 (15)
LCD 921, the power to recall an ex-parte
order is not vested with the Deputy
Director of Consolidation and consequently
the Deputy Director of Consolidation has
patently erred in passing the impugned
order. Another ground taken by learned
counsel for the petitioner is that a detailed
objection had been filed against the
application that had been filed by the
private respondents praying for recall of the
order dated 06.11.2015 which has not been
adverted to while passing the impugned
order and consequently the impugned order
merits to be set-aside. No other ground has
been urged.

4. On the other hand, learned
Standing Counsel submits that the Deputy
Director of Consolidation is vested with
inherent powers to recall an ex-parte order
and it is not a case of review so as to attract
the law as laid down by the Full Bench in
the case of Smt. Anar Kali (supra).

5. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the
records, what is apparent is that by the
impugned order dated 12.01.2021 exparte order dated 06.11.2015 has been
recalled by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation. So far as the Full Bench
judgment in the case of Smt. Anar Kali
(supra) is concerned, the question before
the Full Bench, as finds place in
paragraph 2 of the said judgment, was as
under :-

"Whether it is open for the
Consolidation authorities to reveiw/recall
their final orders exercising inherent
powers
even
though
the
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 does
not vest them any review jurisdiction."

6. The said question has been
answered in paragraph 39 of the said
judgment that it is not open for the
consolidation authorities to review/recall
their
final
orders
passed
in
the
proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act in exercise of inherent
powers. Thus, the question before the
Full Bench was as to whether a review
would lie before the authority concerned
after passing of the final order, which has
been answered in paragraph 39 of the
judgment that no such review/recall
would lie. In the instant case, it is not
case of the petitioner that a review had
been filed by the private respondents
against the order dated 06.11.2015 rather
it is admitted that an application for recall
was filed which has been allowed by
means of order dated 12.01.2021. Thus,
the question of law as stood answered in
the case of Smt. Anar Kali (supra)
which was for a review not lying before
the authority concerned is not attracted in
the facts of the instant case and thus the
judgment of Smt. Anar Kali (supra)
would not come to the rescue of the
petitioner.

7. Upon this, learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that in paragraphs 28
and 29 of the judgment of Smt. Anar Kali
(supra),
the
Full
Bench
has
also
considered
two
earlier
Full
Bench
judgments of this Court and thereafter has
held in paragraph 39 that even an
application for recall would not be
maintainable.
1 All. Bajrangi Lal Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
909

8. The said argument is patently
fallacious inasmuch as once the question
had been framed by the Full Bench of this
Court which was only for the purpose "as
to whether a review would lie before the
authority concerned" consequently the
observations made in paragraph 39 of the
judgment have to be read with the question
which was framed by the Full Bench and
not otherwise.
Thus,
even
the
said
argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner is rejected.

9. A similar controversy came up
before the Apex Court in the case of
Grindlays Bank Limited vs. Central
Government Industrial Tribunal reported
in 1980 (Supp.) SCC 420, wherein the
Apex Court was seized of the question as to
whether Industrial Tribunal could set-aside
its ex-parte award if it was satisfied that the
aggrieved party was prevented from
appearing by sufficient cause. The Apex
Court held that a Tribunal or body should
be considered to be endowed with such
ancillary or incidental powers as are
necessary
to
discharge
its
functions
effectively for the purpose of doing justice
between the parties. It was further held that
although there is no express provision in
the Act or Rules framed there under giving
the Industrial Tribunal jurisdiction to setaside its ex-parte award, Tribunal should be
considered as invested with such incidental
or ancillary powers unless there is any
indication in the statute to the contrary.

10. It is not the case of the petitioner
that the Consolidation of Holdings Act
precludes setting-aside an ex-parte order.
Thus, taking into consideration the law laid
down in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd.
(supra) the Court finds that no error has
been committed by the authority concerned
in passing the order dated 12.01.2021.

11. So far as the argument that the
order dated 12.01.2021 does not contain any
reasons and thus has to be set-aside, suffice
is to state that only the order has been setaside and it would always be open for the
petitioner to file his objections in the said
case when called upon by the court
concerned.

12. Taking into consideration the
aforesaid, no case for interference is made
out. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2021)01ILR A909
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.10.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 14204 of 2020

Bajrangi Lal Gupta ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Shitlesh Pandey, Sri Manjeet Kumar, Sri
Pramod Kumar Maurya

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure - Sections 156(3), 200, 202,
203, 482 - Nature of dispute - Criminal
Courts should ensure that the proceedings
before it are not used for settling scores or
to pressurize parties to settle the civil
dispute. (Para 13)

The dispute of Civil Nature may also contain the
ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will
have to be tried as criminal offences even if
they also amount to civil dispute. But in the
present case ingredients to constitute offences