# Parshuram v. D.D.C., Ballia and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 959
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-04-05
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18339 of 2006
- **Bench:** Krishna Murari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/parshuram-v-d-d-c-ballia-and-others-40711
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1956Section
48-Revision-territorial
jurisdiction-property in dispute situated
in District Ballia-revision challenging the
order passed by S.O.C. Mau-the revisionheld-maintainable at Mau and not at
Ballia.

Held: Para 8, 13 & 14

I
have
considered
the
arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. In the
case of Darbari Lal (supra ) the property
in dispute was situate in district Jalaun.
The appeal filed against the order of
Consolidation Officer was transferred
from Jalaun to the Court of Settlement
Officer Consolidation Kanpur. Against
the appellate order passed by Settlement
Officer Consolidation Kanpur, a revision
was preferred before the Deputy Director
of
Consolidation
Jaldun
at
Orai.
Objection against the maintainability of
the revision before the Deputy Director
of Consolidation Jalaun at Orai was
rejected and the matter came to this
court. This court after considering the
provision of the Act and Rules specially
Section 48 and Rule III held that
revisional court of Jalun at Orai will have
no jurisdiction to hear the revision
against the order of the appellate
authority of Kanpur. The facts of the
case of Darbari Lal are identical to the
fact of the present case and the law laid
down in the said case applies with full
force.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the
two case laws relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondents being clearly
distinguishable are of no help to him. On
the contrary the law laid down in the
case of Darbari Lal with which I am in
respectful agreement applies with full
force.

As a result, the writ petition stands
allowed, the impugned order of Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
dated
10.3.2006
is
hereby
quashed.
The
revision
filed
by
the
answering
respondents before Deputy Director of
Consolidation Ballia is not maintainable
and stands dismissed. It would however
be open to the respondents to file
revision afresh before the competent
court.
Case law discussed:
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
1989 R.D.-304 relied on.
1994 R.D.-62 distinguished.
1970 R.D.-270 distinguished.

## Text

3 All] Parshuram V. D.D.C., Ballia and others
959
The
courts
should
examine
the
genuineness of each complaint and in his
wisdom, should pass a proper order. The
order of the Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.3 Meerut, as passed in the
revision, is absolutely illegal and not
tenable in the eyes of law.

6. Consequently the writ petition is
hereby allowed. The judgment and order
dated 5.4.2006 (Annexure No.6 to the
writ petition) passed by the Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 3,
Meerut
in
Criminal
Revision
No.
270/2005 is quashed. Whereas the order
dated 6.6.2005 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate Mawana district Meerut stands
restored. Petition allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18339 of 2006

Parshuram

...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Abhishek Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rahul Sahai
Sri M.K. Nigam
S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1956Section
48-Revision-territorial
jurisdiction-property in dispute situated
in District Ballia-revision challenging the
order passed by S.O.C. Mau-the revisionheld-maintainable at Mau and not at
Ballia.

Held: Para 8, 13 & 14

I
have
considered
the
arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. In the
case of Darbari Lal (supra ) the property
in dispute was situate in district Jalaun.
The appeal filed against the order of
Consolidation Officer was transferred
from Jalaun to the Court of Settlement
Officer Consolidation Kanpur. Against
the appellate order passed by Settlement
Officer Consolidation Kanpur, a revision
was preferred before the Deputy Director
of
Consolidation
Jaldun
at
Orai.
Objection against the maintainability of
the revision before the Deputy Director
of Consolidation Jalaun at Orai was
rejected and the matter came to this
court. This court after considering the
provision of the Act and Rules specially
Section 48 and Rule III held that
revisional court of Jalun at Orai will have
no jurisdiction to hear the revision
against the order of the appellate
authority of Kanpur. The facts of the
case of Darbari Lal are identical to the
fact of the present case and the law laid
down in the said case applies with full
force.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the
two case laws relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondents being clearly
distinguishable are of no help to him. On
the contrary the law laid down in the
case of Darbari Lal with which I am in
respectful agreement applies with full
force.

As a result, the writ petition stands
allowed, the impugned order of Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
dated
10.3.2006
is
hereby
quashed.
The
revision
filed
by
the
answering
respondents before Deputy Director of
Consolidation Ballia is not maintainable
and stands dismissed. It would however
be open to the respondents to file
revision afresh before the competent
court.
Case law discussed:
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
1989 R.D.-304 relied on.
1994 R.D.-62 distinguished.
1970 R.D.-270 distinguished.

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

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Rahul Sahai appearing for the respondent
no.3.

2. With the consent of learned
counsel for the parties, the writ petition is
being disposed of at the admission stage.

3. The dispute relates to khata no.
245 situate in village Sikandarpur District
Ballia.

4. An objection under Section 9-A
(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of holdings
Act (for short the Act) was filed by the
respondents which was allowed by the
Consolidation Officer vide order dated
21.3.2003.
Aggrieved,
the
petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Settlement
Officer
Consolidation,
Ballia.
Subsequently, on an application made by
the petitioner the appeal was transferred
to the court of Settlement Officer
Consolidation, District Mau and came to
be decided by order dated 1.2.2006. The
respondents preferred a revision before
Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia
against the order passed by Settlement
Officer Consolidation District Mau. The
petitioner raised an objection regarding
the maintainability of the revision before
the Deputy Director of Consolidation
Ballia on the ground that he had no
jurisdiction and the revision would lie
only
before
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation Mau.

5.

The
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Ballia vide order dated
10.3.2006 overruled the objection and
held that revision was maintainable before
him.

6. It has been urged by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that Deputy
Director of Consolidation Ballia has no
jurisdiction to hear the revision against
the judgment of the Settlement Officer
Consolidation Mau. Reliance in support
of contention has been placed on a
decision of learned Single Judge in the
case of Darbari lal Vs. District Deputy
Director of Consolidation Jalaun 1989
RD 304.

7. In reply it has been urged by the
learned counsel for the respondents that
since only appeal was transferred from
Ballia to Mau to be heard by Settlement
Officer Consolidation Mau, the property
in dispute was situate in district Ballia, as
such
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation Ballia will have jurisdiction
to hear the revision. He has placed
reliance on the judgment of learned single
Judge in the case of Ram Das Rai Vs.
Deputy Director of Consolidation 1994
RD 62 and a Division Bench Judgment in
the case of Shitla Prasad Vs. Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
U.P.
Lucknow in camp at Faizabad and
others 1970 RD 270.

8. I have considered the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. In the case
of Darbari Lal (supra) the property in
dispute was situate in district Jalaun. The
appeal
filed
against
the
order
of
Consolidation Officer was transferred
from Jalaun to the Court of Settlement
Officer Consolidation Kanpur. Against
3 All] Parshuram V. D.D.C., Ballia and others
961
the appellate order passed by Settlement
Officer Consolidation Kanpur, a revision
was preferred before the Deputy Director
of Consolidation Jaldun at Orai. Objection
against the maintainability of the revision
before
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation Jalaun at Orai was rejected
and the matter came to this court. This
court after considering the provision of
the Act and Rules specially Section 48
and Rule III held that revisional court of
Jalun at Orai will have no jurisdiction to
hear the revision against the order of the
appellate authority of Kanpur. The facts
of the case of Darbari Lal are identical to
the fact of the present case and the law
laid down in the said case applies with
full force.

9. In so far as the case of Ram Das
Rai relied upon by the learned counsel for
the respondents is concerned the same is
clearly distinguishable. In the case of
Ram
Das
Rai
the
Consolidation
Commissioner transferred some appeals
pending in the court of Settlement Officer
Consolidation Deoria to Sri Ram Chandra
Yadav, Settlement officer Consolidation,
Gorakhpur with a direction that he would
hold camp at Deoria and decide the
appeals. Against the appellate order
revision was filed before the Deputy
Director of Consolidation Deoria. The
question arose whether the revision would
be
maintainable
before
the
Deputy
Director of Consolidation Deoria or
before Deputy Director of Consolidation
Gorakhpur. Learned single Judge held
that the revisions filed before Deputy
Director of Consolidation Deoria were
maintainable. It was held that the order
passed
by
the
Consolidation
Commissioner directing Sri Ram Chandra
Yadav, Settlement Officer Consolidation
Gorakhpur to decide the appeal by
holding a camp at Deoria was a direction
within meaning of Sub -Section 2 of
Section 42 of the Act and he would be
deemed
to
be
Settlement
Officer
consolidation Deoria and for this reason,
revision filed before the Deputy Director
Consolidation Deoria were held to be
maintainable. The facts in so far as
present case is concerned, are entirely
different. In the present case, the appeals
were transferred to be heard by the
Settlement Officer Consolidation Mau.
The facts being clearly distinguishable,
the case of Ram Das Rai is of no help to
the respondents. Even otherwise, the ratio
of this decision supports the contention
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner.

10. Division bench judgment in the
case of Shitla Prasad Vs. Deputy Director
of Consolidation relied upon by the
learned counsel for the respondents also
has no application in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. In the
case of Shitala Prasad (supra) revisional
order was challenged on the ground that
since the revision was not transferred by
the
District
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation Faizabad to the Deputy
Director of Consolidation Lucknow in
camp at Faizabad, it could not be heard
and disposed of by him and his judgment
is void for that reason. It was in the
context of the aforesaid facts, the Division
Bench held that a revision -application
can be made to the Deputy Director of
Consolidation and that all the Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
in
Uttar
Pradesh have jurisdiction to hear the
revision-application under Section 48 of
the
Act.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents has urged that in view of the
observation made by division bench any
Deputy Director of Consolidation will
962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
have jurisdiction to hear a revisionapplication and thus the revision filed
before Deputy Director of Consolidation
Ballia against the order of Settlement
Officer Consolidation Mau would be
maintainable.

11. I am afraid the interpretation
being given by the learned counsel for the
respondents to the observation made by
the
division
bench
are
totally
misconceived.
The
question
before
division bench was as to whether the
Deputy Director of Consolidation could
decide a revision without file being
transferred to him by the District Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation.
While,
rejecting the arguments that Officer
hearing a revision - application gets
jurisdiction to hear it by the authority of
the order of transfer of the case to his file
by the District Deputy Director of
Consolidation, it was observed by the
division bench as follows;

"This provision read along with
various notifications issued by the State
Government from time to time and the
order of the Director clearly show that a
revision-application can be made to a
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
that
all
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation in Uttar Pradesh have
jurisdiction
to
hear
a
revision
-
application is not conferred by an order
passed under rule 65 (1-A) but by the
provision of the Act mentioned above and
the
notifications
of
the
State
Government".

12. The aforesaid observation made
by the Division Bench has to be read with
reference to the facts of the case and in
context of the question which was being
considered. If the aforesaid observation
are to be read in the manner as suggested
by the learned counsel for the respondents
in that case any Deputy Director of
Consolidation in the entire State of U.P.
could seize upon any case and decide it
himself irrespective of the fact whether
the
dispute
lies
within
territorial
jurisdiction of the district where he is
posted or not. This would not only be
against the provisions of the Act but
would also result into total chaos.

13. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, the two case laws relied upon
by the learned counsel for the respondents
being clearly distinguishable are of no
help to him. On the contrary the law laid
down in the case of Darbari Lal with
which I am in respectful agreement
applies with full force.

14. As a result, the writ petition
stands allowed, the impugned order of
Deputy Director of Consolidation dated
10.3.2006 is hereby quashed. The revision
filed by the answering respondents before
Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia
is not maintainable and stands dismissed.
It would however be open to the
respondents to file revision afresh before
the competent court.
Petition allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE D.P. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23802 of 2005

Smt. Atro Devi and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Punjab National Bank and others

 ...Respondents