# Ors v. Jagroop Singh (supra) the 4th

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 235
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-03-25
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17568 of 1999
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ors-v-jagroop-singh-supra-the-4th-39991
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act 1962-
Section 48- impugned order passed by
Deputy Director of Consolidation- the
Conclusion recorded- without discussion-
held illegal.

Held- Para 4

What are the material ingredients to
constitute
a
finding
received
consideration of the Apex Court as also
this Court in a catena of decisions and
position is now well settled that the
finding includes materials considered,
reasons recorded and then conclusions.
The
impugned
order
contains
conclusions and not reasons. Therefore,
the impugned order detracts from being
a judicial order containing reasoning and
is liable to be quashed. I would not
shrink from observing that expeditious
disposal is a desirable thing but it should
not
be
preferred
at
the
altar
of
requirements consisting in a judicial
order.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Case law discussed:
2000 R.D.-203
2000 R.D.-213
1994 R.D.-299

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Badri and others V. D.D.C., Ghazipur and others 235
21. In the case State of Haryana &
Ors. Vs. Jagroop Singh (supra) the 4th
Pay Commission recommended the pay
scale of Rs. 950-1500 w.e.f. 1.1.1986
which was given by the State Government
w.e.f. said date. On representation being
made, the pay scale was enhanced to
Rs.1200-2040
w.e.f.
1.5.1990.
The
employee approached the High Court
claiming entitlement of pay scale of
Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 without
assailing the notification issued by the
State Government modifying the pay
scale. The Government on the basis of
representation made, suggestion received
as well as qualification for different posts
had modified the pay scale w.e.f.
1.5.1990. The Hon. Supreme Court did
not find any infirmity in the Government
decision particular when the employee did
not assail the legality of the aforesaid
notification.

22. In the present case, as already
mentioned hereinbefore, the respondentswrit petitioners had alleged discrimination
and sought the same pay scale w.e.f.
12.4.1990, which had been given to the
employees working as Machine Man
Offset. We have already held that the
respondent-writ petitioners have been
arbitrarily discriminated and action of the
appellant in not granting the same pay
scale which was given to the Machine
Offset is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Thus, we are of the
view that the decisions relied upon by the
Appellants have no application to the
facts of the present case.

23. In view of the foregoing
discussions, we do not find any legal
infirmity in the impugned judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The Special Appeal fails and is dismissed.
However, the parties shall bear their
own costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.3.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17568 of 1999

Badri and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Ghazipur and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri G.N. Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Aditya Narain
Sri A.N. Singh
S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act 1962-
Section 48- impugned order passed by
Deputy Director of Consolidation- the
Conclusion recorded- without discussion-
held illegal.

Held- Para 4

What are the material ingredients to
constitute
a
finding
received
consideration of the Apex Court as also
this Court in a catena of decisions and
position is now well settled that the
finding includes materials considered,
reasons recorded and then conclusions.
The
impugned
order
contains
conclusions and not reasons. Therefore,
the impugned order detracts from being
a judicial order containing reasoning and
is liable to be quashed. I would not
shrink from observing that expeditious
disposal is a desirable thing but it should
not
be
preferred
at
the
altar
of
requirements consisting in a judicial
order.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Case law discussed:
2000 R.D.-203
2000 R.D.-213
1994 R.D.-299

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. Petition in hand is directed against
the judgment and order dated 1.3.99
passed
by
the
Deputy
Director
Consolidation
(Annexure
7
to
the
petition) by which revision no. 1076
preferred by Kapil Deo was allowed and
chaks
allotted
at
the
stage
of
Consolidation Officer between the parties
were re arranged. The learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the revisional
court has passed orders on the ground that
chaks in questions were the original
holdings of the respondents 2 and 3 and in
consequence,
interfered
with
the
arrangement made at the level of
consolidation officer and re allocated the
same to the respondents and those of the
respondents to the petitioners. It is further
submitted that from a perusal of Form
....no. 23, the finding recorded by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation is
impaired and wears the taint of perversity.
The learned counsel next submitted that
by this order, plot nos. 383, 624 and 625
comprising in the original holding of the
petitioners were assigned to respondents
and those of the respondents, to the
petitioners and therefore, the conclusions
arrived at by the Deputy Director,
Consolidation are not informed with
reasons as to how the demand of the
revisionist carried substance. He also
assailed the order on the ground that there
is not a vestige of finding in vindication
of the observation that the order passed by
the Settlement Officer Consolidation
suffered from the blemish of illegality. In
opposition, Sri Aditya Narain learned
counsel appearing for the Opposite parties
tried to justify the order stating that it was
rightly passed and was in accordance with
law. He further tried to whittle down the
submissions by stating that the petitioners
have been allotted plots in the propinquity
of their residential house while the
respondents have been assigned chaks far
removed from their residences and this
arrangement has not prejudiced the
interest of the petitioners in any way and
that
merely
wrongs
done
to
the
respondents have been undone in revision
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Ultimately, it is submitted that the
arrangement made by the Deputy Director
Consolidation was strictly in accordance
with the provisions as contemplated in
section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act.

3.

Having
considered
the
submissions made across the bar and upon
a perusal of the order impugned herein, it
is eloquent that the D.D.C. has not
recorded anyone reason to prop up his
conclusion thereby holding the demand of
the petitioners as genuine. The solitary
ground which can be perceived from the
order appears to be that the Deputy
Director Consolidation was swayed by
consideration to ;hold that the demand
was plausible on the premises that the
plots in question had earlier comprised in
the original holding of the respondents. It
is well settled in law that where it appears
that the Deputy Director Consolidation
has not applied its mind to evidence on
record and has decided the matter without
the merit being sifted or dealt with , the
order is manifestly erroneous and suffers
from not being a judicial order. It would
appear that contentions of the parties have
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Badri and others V. D.D.C., Ghazipur and others 237
not been discussed nor is there any indicia
to indicate that the Deputy Director
Consolidation relied upon any documents
filed by the parties in support of their
respective contentions or he sifted or dealt
with
the
merits
of
the
respective
contentions. Under the provisions of
section
48,
the
Deputy
Director
Consolidation is enjoined to satisfy
himself as to the regularity of the
proceedings or as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any order after
allowing the parties an opportunity of
being heard. It is not eloquent from the
order
that
the
Deputy
Director
Consolidation
observed
any
of
the
postulates contained in the aforesaid
section in compliance. The pith of the
observation made by the Apex Court in
Sheshmani
v.
Deputy
Director
consolidation Basti1 is that in amended
section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings
Act,
power
of
Director
consolidation is not circumscribed to
mere error of jurisdiction but it now
extends to satisfying himself as to the
regularity
correctness
legality
and
propriety of any order other than
interlocutory order but the said power
cannot be equated with the power of the
appellate court. It is further observed that
in considering correctness, legality and
propriety of the order, the Deputy
Director of Consolidation has to consider
whether legally admissible evidence has
been considered by the authority in
recording a finding of fact or law and
conclusions reached by them are based on
evidence
or
patent
illegality
or
impropriety has been committed or error
in procedural legality which goes to the
roots of the matter. It is further observed
that notwithstanding the fact that section

1 reported in 2000 R.D. p.213
48 has been couched in wide terms it only
permits interference with the finding of
the appellate court in the sense that they
are not supported by evidence on record
and they are against the law or against the
scheme in the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act or are suffering from the
vice of procedural irregularities. In the
ultimate analysis it has been postulated
that in order to arrive at a conclusion, he
has to consider the material on record and
record reasons. The Apex Court has also
reckoned into consideration with approval
the case of Ram Dular v. Deputy
Director of Consolidation Jaunpur2 and
two other cases. The above observations
find its echo in the case of Gaya Din v.
Hanuman Prasad3 as well. The cryptic
order that has been passed in the instant
case, cannot be given the veneer of a
judicial order and therefore, it does not
commend to me for being sustained.

4. What are the material ingredients
to
constitute
a
finding
received
consideration of the Apex Court as also
this Court in a catena of decisions and
position is now well settled that the
finding includes materials considered,
reasons recorded and then conclusions.
The impugned order contains conclusions
and not reasons. Therefore, the impugned
order detracts from being a judicial order
containing reasoning and is liable to be
quashed. I would not shrink from
observing that expeditious disposal is a
desirable thing but it should not be
preferred at the altar of requirements
consisting in a judicial order.

5. In the conspectus of the above
discussion, the petition is allowed and the

2 reported in 1994 R.D. 290
3 reported in A.L.R. 2001 226
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
impugned order dated 31.3.1999 passed
by the Deputy Director consolidation
contained in annexure 7 to the petition, is
quashed. The matter is relegated to the
Deputy Director of Consolidation for
decision afresh in observance of the
mandatory provisions of section 48 of the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.3.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN CHATTERJEE, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Application No. 7 of 2003

Smt. Akhtari Begum and others

 ...Applicants
Versus
Nasim Ahmad & another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri J.J. Munir

Counsel for the Respondents:

Constitution
of
India-
Art.
227
Supervisory Power of High Court- order
under challenge by which the application
for summoning Original Deed- Rejected-
specific provision under section 115
C.P.C. provides for revision- power under
Article 227 can not be exercised- can be
used
sparingly
and
extra
ordinary
circumstances.

Held- Para 13

Accordingly, it is not a fit case where the
High Court will exercise its power under
Article 227 of the Constitution which has
to be sparingly used and in our view it is
not a case where such interference is
needed. At the same time, as held herein
earlier, we are of the view that the
application under Article 227 of the
Constitution is not maintainable.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1964 Cal. 439

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Chatterjee, J.)

1. This is an Application under
Article
227
of
the
Constitution
challenging the order dated 22nd January,
2003 passed by the civil judge (junior
division), Najibabad in O.S.No. 62 of
1992 whereby an application filed by the
petitioners seeking to summon original
Will dated 14th July, 1987 in the court of
Judge, Small Causes, Bijnor was rejected.
It is not in dispute that this order was
passed in the suit filed by the plaintiff-
opposite parties in which the petitioners
were the defendants.

2. A question of some importance
has arisen for decision before us whether
the order rejecting the application seeking
to summon the original Will dated 14th
July, 1987 in the court of Judge, Small
Causes, Bijnor could be challenged by
way of proceedings under Article 227 of
the Constitution in view of the specific
provisions contained in Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.

3. According to the learned counsel
for the petitioners, in view of the
amendment
in
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure, no application for revision of
the
impugned
order
would
be
maintainable. Learned counsel for the
petitioners
further
contended
that
according to law, an application under
Article 227 of the Constitution against the
impugned order is maintainable. We are
unable to accept this contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners. In our
view when there is specific provision for
filing a revision application under section
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the