# M/s Dilip Oil Company v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 445
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-03-11
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12319 of 1982
- **Bench:** Krishna Murari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-dilip-oil-company-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40470
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Anuj Kumar
S.C.

U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
ActSection 11(2), 21 (5), 48 readwith as
amended by amending Act 1963-Power
of Revision-S.O.C. decided the appeal on
16.1.67-under some misconception on
application dt. 17.2.68-D.D.C. allowed
the conversion of revision into second
appeal maintainable? held-not, whether
is the Revision against the order passed
by D.D.C. in Second Appeal maintainable
before the Director of Consolidation?
Held-'No'

Held: Para 12 & 13

From the aforesaid settled legal position,
it is clear that after 8.3.1963 no second
appeal was maintainable and only a
revision could have been filed. The
petitioner though initially filed a revision
but under some misconceived notion of
law got it converted into Second appeal
though the same was not maintainable.

The
only
question
is
whether
the
petitioner had a further remedy of filing
a
revision
before
the
Director
of
Consolidation against the order dated
12.7.1968 passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation deciding the proceedings
treating it to be a Second Appeal. In
view of the decision of the larger bench
in the case of Gauri Shakar Vs. Sidhnath
Tiwari (supra) the revision against the
order dated 17.2.1968 would not be
maintainable
and
has
rightly
been
dismissed.
Case law discussed:
1964 AWR-68
1966 A.L.J. 641 (F.B.)
1968 A.L.J. 933 (Larger Bench)

## Text

2 All] M/s Dilip Oil Company V. State of U.P. and others

 445
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12319 of 1982

Badri Narain

...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N.P. Misra
Sri D.N. Shukla
Sri R.S. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anuj Kumar
S.C.

U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
ActSection 11(2), 21 (5), 48 readwith as
amended by amending Act 1963-Power
of Revision-S.O.C. decided the appeal on
16.1.67-under some misconception on
application dt. 17.2.68-D.D.C. allowed
the conversion of revision into second
appeal maintainable? held-not, whether
is the Revision against the order passed
by D.D.C. in Second Appeal maintainable
before the Director of Consolidation?
Held-'No'

Held: Para 12 & 13

From the aforesaid settled legal position,
it is clear that after 8.3.1963 no second
appeal was maintainable and only a
revision could have been filed. The
petitioner though initially filed a revision
but under some misconceived notion of
law got it converted into Second appeal
though the same was not maintainable.

The
only
question
is
whether
the
petitioner had a further remedy of filing
a
revision
before
the
Director
of
Consolidation against the order dated
12.7.1968 passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation deciding the proceedings
treating it to be a Second Appeal. In
view of the decision of the larger bench
in the case of Gauri Shakar Vs. Sidhnath
Tiwari (supra) the revision against the
order dated 17.2.1968 would not be
maintainable
and
has
rightly
been
dismissed.
Case law discussed:
1964 AWR-68
1966 A.L.J. 641 (F.B.)
1968 A.L.J. 933 (Larger Bench)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned standing counsel.

2. Though the case has been taken
up in revised list no one appeared for
respondent no.2.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the
facts relevant for the purpose of the case
are
that
village
was
notified
for
consolidation operations in 1962. The
petitioner filed an objection under Section
9 of the Act claiming Sirdari rights over
the land in dispute which was dismissed
by Consolidation Officer. Appeal filed by
him was also dismissed by the Settlement
Officer Consolidation. Feeling aggrieved
the petitioner filed a revision before the
Deputy Director Consolidation.

4. Under a misconception that since
proceedings were initiated under the
unamended Act which provided for a
Second Appeal before Deputy Director of
Consolidation and thereafter a revision
before Director of Consolidation, the
petitioner moved an application dated
17.12.1968 for converting the revision
into the Second Appeal which was
allowed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation and on the same day he
446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
decided the revision treating it to be an
appeal. Aggrieved by the said order the
petitioner preferred a revision which came
to be dismissed vide impugned order
dated 5.7.1982 as not maintainable.

5. It has been urged by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that since the
proceedings were started under the unamended Act as such they would be
governed by the procedure and forum
prescribed by the un-amended Act and the
revision was wrongly rejected as not
maintainable.

6. Under the un-amended Act
Section 11 (2) and 21 (5) provided for
second appeals to the Deputy Director of
Consolidation against the appellate order
of the Settlement Officer Consolidation.
Section 48 provided for a revision to the
Director of Consolidation from the
decision
of
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation. However, by Amending
Act VIII of 1963, the provision for filing
second appeal was repealed. Existing
Section 48 was also repealed and was reenacted conferring revisional power on
the Director of consolidation to look into
the correctness, propriety or legality of
the
orders
passed
by
subordinate
authority.

7.

The
main
question
for
consideration in this case is whether a
revision was maintainable before the
Director of Consolidation as was provided
by Section 48 of the unamended Act
against an order passed by Deputy
Director of Consolidation in Second
Appeal even after the amendment brought
in the statute by amending Act VIII of
1963, or the proceedings would be
governed by amended Act and no further
revision would be maintainable.
8. In the case of Lal Singh and
another
Vs.
Commissioner

and
Director
of
Consolidation,
Meerut
Division, Meerut, 1964 AWR 68 of the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act a
Division Bench of this Court, while
considering the aforesaid question, held
that orders passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation before 8th March, 1963
exercising
appellate
power
were
amendable to revisional jurisdiction of
Director of Consolidation or Deputy
Director of Consolidation conferred with
the power of Director of Consolidation.
However, orders passed after 8th March
1963 were not revisable by the Director.

9. This opinion of the Division
Bench was based on the fact that orders
passed
by
Deputy
Director

of
Consolidation
before
8.3.1963
were
orders passed as subordinate authorities
and as such were amenable to revisional
jurisdiction conferred upon Director of
Consolidation or Deputy Director of
Consolidation conferred with the powers
of Director of Consolidation, however the
orders passed after 8.3.1963 were not
revisable by the Directors for after
passing of Act VIII of 1963, the Deputy
Director of Consolidation were not
subordinate
to
the
Directors
of
Consolidation, in view of notification no.
1502-CH/ I-E- 132-63 issued in exercise
of powers conferred by Clause (ii) of
Section 44, conferring the powers of
Section
48
vested
in
Director
of
Consolidation
upon
all
the
Deputy
Director of Consolidation. The Bench
was of the view that after amendment of
Section 48 by amending Act VIII of 1963,
powers of Director to revise an order was
conferred upon the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, and there was nothing to
suggest
that
Deputy
Director
of
2 All] Badri Narain V. D.D.C., Jaunpur and another

 447
Consolidation was subordinate to the
Director of Consolidation for the purposes
of Section 48 of the amended act.

10. The correctness of the decision
in the case of Lal Singh (supra) came up
for consideration by a Full Bench in the
case of Prem Chandra Vs Deputy
Director 1966 ALJ 641. The Full Bench
held that revision against the order of
Deputy Director of Consolidation even
after 8.3.1963 would be maintainable and
would be governed by un-amended
Section 48. The correctness of the
decision of the full bench was again
considered by a larger bench in the case
of
Gauri
Shankar
Vs.
Sidhanath
Tripathi 1968 ALJ 933. The larger
bench by a majority overruled the full
bench
decision
rendered
in
Prem
Chandra
Vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation (supra). Interpretating the
transitory provision contained in Section
47 of the amending Act of 1963 the larger
bench opined that a decision given by the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation
or
Deputy Director of Consolidation on or
after 8.3.1963 would be governed by
amended act and accordingly a revision
and not a second appeal would lie from
the
order
of
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation.

11. In the present case, the
settlement Officer consolidation decided
the appeal of the petitioner on 16.1.1967
which was initially challenged by him by
filing revision. Subsequently, under some
misconception the petitioner moved an
application
dated
17.2.1968
for
converting it into an appeal, on the same
day Deputy Director of Consolidation
converted the revision into an appeal and
decided the same.

12. From the aforesaid settled legal
position, it is clear that after 8.3.1963 no
second appeal was maintainable and only
a revision could have been filed. The
petitioner though initially filed a revision
but under some misconceived notion of
law got it converted into Second appeal
though the same was not maintainable.

13. In any view of the matter the
case of the petitioner was considered by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation on
merits. It does not make much difference
whether it was decided as a Second
Appeal or a revision. The only question
is whether the petitioner had a further
remedy of filing a revision before the
Director of Consolidation against the
order dated 12.7.1968 passed by Deputy
Director of Consolidation deciding the
proceedings treating it to be a Second
Appeal. In view of the decision of the
larger bench in the case of Gauri Shakar
Vs. Sidhnath Tiwari (supra) the revision
against the order dated 17.2.1968 would
not be maintainable and has rightly been
dismissed.

14. In view of foregoing discussions,
I do not find any merit in the writ petition.
The writ petition accordingly fails and is
dismissed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
---------
448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8056 of 1981

Umesh Chandra

...Petitioner
Versus
Joint Director of Consolidation, Aligarh
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.L. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.P. Goyal
Sri Prem Babu Verma
Sri Sudhir Kumar
S.C.

U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-S.-134 (1) Acquisition
of Bhumidhari Rights-petitioner being
Sirdar on 9.6.92 applied for acquisition
of Bhumidhari Rights, by depositing 10
time rent-before the grant of certificateexempted registered sale deed-whether
is the execution of sale deed valid? held-
'yes' in view of the provision of S-137 (1)
the grant of certificates relates back date
of application.

Held: Para 10 and 12

In view of the aforesaid legal position it
is clear that Smt. Ram Pyari acquired
bhumidhari rights on the date i.e.
9.6.1972 when she made application
under Section 134 (1) of the Act and
deposited the requisite amount. The
view taken by the Settlement Officer
Consolidation and Deputy Director of
Consolidation
that
since
declaration
under Section 137 (1) was granted
subsequent to the execution of the sale
deed and she was only a sirdar on the
date of execution of the deed is illegal
and cannot be sustained.

Thus the view taken by this court stands
overruled by Hon. Apex court. Since the
certificate will have retrospective effect
and would relate back to the application,
the death of tenure holder between the
period
of
making
application
and
issuance of certificate will have no effect
and such a tenure holder would be
deemed to have required bhumidhar
rights on the date of making application,
even though he may have died before
grant of certificate.
Case law discussed:
2000 (91) R.D. 277
1978 R.D. 183

(Delivered Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.L. Yadav learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prem
Babu
Verma
appearing
for
the
respondents.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case
are that during the consolidation operation
the petitioner filed objection under
Section 9 -A (2) of the Act claiming
bhumidhari rights over the land in dispute
on the basis of registered sale deed dated
9.6.1972 alleged to have been executed by
Smt Ram Pyari the recorded tenure holder
in his favour. The respondent no. 3 also
filed objection claiming rights as legal
heirs of Smt. Ram Pyari.

3. Smt. Ram Pyari who was
recorded as sirdar over the land in dispute
made an application on 9.6.1972 under
section 134 of the Act for grant of
bhumidhari sanad and deposited ten times
of the land revenue on the same day as
required by the said Section. She also
executed a registered sale deed in favour
of petitioner on the same date i.e.
9.6.1972. Smt Ram Pyari died on
17.6.1972 whereas bhumidhari sanad was
granted on 24.6.1972.