# Raj Nath v. D.D.C. Jaunpur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1383
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-11-20
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 56524 of 2015
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-nath-v-d-d-c-jaunpur-ors-43327
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-Section
48-Revision-Chak allotment matter-decided
without summoning record-without spot
inspection-while
exercising
revisional
power-the
D.D.C.
To
ensure
and
be
satisfied-whether the provisions contained
under Rule 21(3), 24-D and 26 (5) complied
with or not? In absence of consideration,
order not sustainable, quashed.
Held: Para-25
Accordingly and in view of the above
discussion, the impugned order passed by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation which
has
admittedly
been
passed
without
summoning or perusing the record of the
proceedings before the Consolidation Officer
as the Settlement Officer, Consolidation,
cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set
aside. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed and the impugned order dated
28.05.2015 is set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, respondent no. 1 to decide
the revisions no. 1686 and 1688 afresh.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1975 (Allahabad) 126; 2015 (127) RD
675; (2005) 98 RD 593.

## Text

3 All] Raj Nath Vs. D.D.C. Jaunpur & Ors.
1383
blank, had declared that such candidates are
also to be considered for the post of
'Designated Officer', is it open to the
Commission to have two sets of norms, one
for the candidates who approached the High
Court and the other for the candidates who did
not approached the High Court? Why such
judgements be not read as judgements in rem?
(b) Can a writ petition be dismissed on
the ground of latches only because the result
of Preliminary Examination had been known
to the petitioner, when, there had been a
judgment of this Court for ignoring the blank
Coloumn No. 20, in the matter of
consideration of candidature of the candidate
against the post of "Designated Officer"?
(c) Whether the Division Bench in the
case of Vinay Kumar Pal (supra) was right in
the facts of the case, in recording that there
has been inordinate delay in filing the writ
petition with reference to the date on which
the final result was declared?
27. Let this order be placed before
Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting
a Larger Bench for answering the
aforesaid questions at the earliest.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Writ-B No. 56524 of 2015
connected with
Writ-B No. 59549 of 2015
Raj Nath
 ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. Jaunpur & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.C. Tripathi
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Bedi Lal Verma, Sri S.N.
Tripathi
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-Section
48-Revision-Chak allotment matter-decided
without summoning record-without spot
inspection-while
exercising
revisional
power-the
D.D.C.
To
ensure
and
be
satisfied-whether the provisions contained
under Rule 21(3), 24-D and 26 (5) complied
with or not? In absence of consideration,
order not sustainable, quashed.
Held: Para-25
Accordingly and in view of the above
discussion, the impugned order passed by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation which
has
admittedly
been
passed
without
summoning or perusing the record of the
proceedings before the Consolidation Officer
as the Settlement Officer, Consolidation,
cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set
aside. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed and the impugned order dated
28.05.2015 is set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, respondent no. 1 to decide
the revisions no. 1686 and 1688 afresh.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1975 (Allahabad) 126; 2015 (127) RD
675; (2005) 98 RD 593.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar
Mishra, J.)
1. Heard Shri S.C. Tripathi, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.N.
Tripathi and Shri B.L Verma, for the
caveator.
2. With the consent of the parties, the
matter has been heard and is being decided
finally at the admission stage itself without
calling for a counter affidavit.
3. The writ petition arises out of
proceedings for allotment of chaks and
seeks for quashing of the order dated
1384
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
25.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation whereby he has allowed
the revisions no. 1686 and 1688 while a
third revision being revision no. 1687 has
been dismissed.
4. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that revisional
court has passed the order impugned
without summoning the record of the
courts below. The lower court record was
neither summoned nor was before the
Deputy Director of Consolidation when
the impugned order was passed. He,
therefore, submits that the impugned
order is vitiated in view of the law laid
down in the Full Bench decision of this
Court in Rama Kant Vs. DDC AIR 1975
(Allahabad) 126.
5. The contention of the learned
counsel for the respondents is that there
was no necessity by summoning the lower
court records. The village map and also
the relevant CH Form-23 were before the
Deputy Director of Consolidation. He
further submits that the orders passed by
the subordinate consolidation authorities,
namely, the Consolidation Officer, and
the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had
been annexed along with the memo of
revision. All these documents have been
duly considered before passing the
impugned order. In any case, it was only
these documents which were relevant for
decision of the revision itself.
6.
His contention is that even if the
lower court record had been summoned and
had been produced before the Deputy
Director of Consolidation the only other
document that would have been before him
would be the copy of the objection and the
memo of appeal. He has placed reliance
upon a decision of this Court in the case of
Ram Bachan vs. DDC 2015 (127) RD 675 in
support of his contention that only the village
map and the CH Form-23 of the parties is
relevant for deciding the revision arising out
of proceedings for allotment of chaks. He has
further tried to draw a distinction between
title proceedings under Section 9 and Section
12 of the Act and the instant proceedings for
allotment of chaks which arise from an
objection under Section 21 of the Act. He
submits that the position in the case of the
title proceedings may be different.
7. However, as far as chak allotment
matters are concerned, all the relevant
documents were before the Deputy
Director of Consolidation and, therefore,
the order impugned cannot be interfered
with on the ground raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner.
8.
On the basis of the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties,
the only question that arises for consideration
in the instant writ petition is as to whether the
Deputy Director of Consolidation while
exercising the revisional powers under
Section 48 of the UP Consolidation of
Holdings Act is competent to decide a
revision without summoning and perusing
the lower court record.
9. Section 48 of the Act which is
central for deciding the controversy in the
instant writ petition is quoted herein
below:-
"[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 or any order [ other
3 All] Raj Nath Vs. D.D.C. Jaunpur & Ors.
1385
than an interlocutory order] passed by
such authority in 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 hear, refer the
record of any case or proceedings to the
Director of Consolidation for action
under sub-section (1).]
[Explanation.-
[(1)]
For
the
purposes of this section, Settlement
Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation
Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officer,s
Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals
shall be subordinate to the Director of
Consolidation].
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
proceedings.
[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 reappreciate any oral or
documentary evidence.]"
10.
From a bare perusal of this
provision, it is clear that while exercising
powers under Section 48 of the Act, the
Deputy Director of Consolidation is
required to examine the record of any case
decided by any subordinate authority for
satisfying himself as to the regularity of the
proceedings or the correctness, legality or
propriety of any order passed by the
subordinate authorities. This power can be
exercised as regards all orders of subordinate
authorities, except interlocutory orders.
11. For deciding the controversy
involved in the writ petition, it would also
be relevant to refer to various other
provisions of the Act itself.
12. Section 21 (3) of the Act provides
that before deciding an objection against the
provisional
consolidation
scheme
the
authorities is mandatorily required to make a
spot inspection. An analogous provision is to
be found in sub-section (4) of Section 9-B. In
this provision the requirement of a local spot
inspection is mandatory both for the
Consolidation Officer as also the Settlement
Officer, Consolidation.
13. Rule 24-D of the Rules under the
Act, provides that when the Consolidation
Officer
or
the
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation make a local inspection,
they are required to prepare inspection
memos and place such memos on the
record of the proceedings.
14. Rule 26 (5) makes it mandatory for
the Consolidation Officer to make a local
inspection of the plot concerned while
deciding a dispute relating to determination
of exchange ratio or for determining the
valuation of trees, well or other improvement
existing on a plot. Even this inspection
memo is required to be necessarily placed on
the record of the case.
15. Apart from the provisions
quoted above, it goes without saying that
1386
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
there might be other relevant evidence
available on record of proceedings that
may have been filed by the parties,
therein, including the oral testimony of
the parties.
16. This Court in the case of Hari Das
and another vs. DDC (2005) 98 RD 593 has
held
that
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
while
setting
aside
a
judgement of an inferior court, is required to
consider the entire evidence available on
record.
17.
Explanation 3 which has been
added to Section 48 w.e.f 10.11.1980,
empowers
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation to appraise the evidence
available on record and to record findings
both on facts and on law, contrary to those
returned by the subordinate authorities.
18. From the provisions noted
above, as also in view of the judgement in
the case of Hari Das (supra) it is clear that
the Deputy Director of Consolidation
while deciding a revision has to also
consider the evidence that is available on
record of the proceedings before the
courts below. This cannot be done till
such time the record of the proceedings
before
the
subordinate
consolidation
authorities is before him.
19. Sub-section (1) of Section 48
mandates that the Deputy Director of
Consolidation while deciding a revision
has
to
satisfy
himself
about
the
correctness legality or propriety of any
order
passed
by
such
subordinate
authorities.
20. A conjoint reading of the various
provisions as also the case law referred to
above, necessarily leads to the conclusion
that the record of the subordinate courts is
required to be before the Deputy Director
of
Consolidation
while
deciding
a
revision.
21. In the case of Ram Bechan (supra)
cited by the respondent, it has been held that
while deciding a revision arising out of a
chak allotment proceedings, the village
record and map are essential records. In that
case, these records were before the Deputy
Director of Consolidation and had been
examined prior to passing an order. The
court has further observed that the purpose of
local inspection is to properly appreciate
arguments of the parties. The object of such
spot or local inspection is not to collect fresh
evidence.
22.
The judgement cited does not
appear to have considered the Full Bench
decision in the case of Rama Kant (supra).
The Full Bench has observed as follows
while answering the questions referred to it:-
"After the record has been called for by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation under
Section 48 of the UP Consolidation of
Holdings Act he should examine the record
to decide whether it was a fit case for
exercise of the revisional jurisdiction suo
motu. Such opinion shall have to be formed
even where the application in revision moved
by a party is defective having been made
beyond the prescribed period of limitation or
all the necessary parties have not been
impleaded.
If
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation finds that the case requires
further hearing he shall give notice to all
the necessary parties irrespective of
whether they were or were not impleaded
in the application and after giving them
reasonable opportunity of hearing pass
such orders as he thinks fit. Where the
3 All] Raj Nath Vs. D.D.C. Jaunpur & Ors.
1387
application in revision is not defective
and is maintainable the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction shall be at the
instance of the Parties and not suo motu."
23. From the judgement of the Full
Bench it necessarily follows that the
Deputy Director of Consolidation has to
examine the record of the proceedings
before the subordinate authorities to
decide whether it is a fit case for
interference at the revisional stage. It,
therefore, necessarily follows that such an
opinion
cannot
be
formed
without
examining the record of the proceedings
before the courts below and, therefore, the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner must necessarily be accepted.
24. Since it has been admitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
record of the proceedings of the subordinate
consolidation authorities had neither been
summoned nor was available before the
Deputy Director of Consolidation when he
passed the impugned order of the reversal,
the writ petition merits interference.
25.
Accordingly and in view of the
above discussion, the impugned order passed
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation
which has admittedly been passed without
summoning or perusing the record of the
proceedings before the Consolidation Officer
as the Settlement Officer, Consolidation,
cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set
aside. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed and the impugned order dated
28.05.2015 is set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, respondent no. 1 to decide the
revisions no. 1686 and 1688 afresh.
26. Insofar as the revision no. 1687,
the
third
revision
decided
by
the
impugned order is concerned, the same
has been dismissed but the revisionists,
namely, Vinod has not challenged the
order of dismissal. The impugned order,
therefore, insofar as it relates to revision
no. 1687 is not being interfered with.
27. The writ petition no. 59549 of
2015 involves an identical issue.
28. Shri S.C. Tripathi is counsel for
the petitioner in this petition as well while
Shri Rama Kant Tiwari appears for the
respondents 2 and 5. Shri Manoj Kumar
Yadav, appears for the respondent no. 8.
29. Although some of the respondents,
namely, respondents no. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10
are not represented, yet as a purely legal
issue has been raised in this petition which
has already been decided in the connected
writ petition, this writ petition is also being
decided in the same terms without calling for
any counter affidavit or issuing notices to the
unrepresented respondents.
30. In this writ petition No. 59549 of
2015, the Revisional Courts record was
summoned and was produced by learned
Standing Counsel for perusal by this Court.
Upon such perusal, the allegation in the writ
petition that the lower court record was not
before the Deputy Director of Consolidation
when he decided the revision was found to
be correct. The record was thereafter
returned to learned Standing Counsel.
31. The contention of learned counsel
for the respondents is that no injustice has
been caused to the petitioner merely by the
fact that the lower court record was not
before the Deputy Director of Consolidation
while he decided the revision exercising
powers under Section 48 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act.
1388
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
32. This contention is repelled in
view of the foregoing discussion in Writ
Petition No. 56524 of 2015.
33. This writ petition is also liable to be
allowed and the order dated 05.10.2015
passed by the respondent no. 1 is liable to be
quashed and the matter deserves to be
remanded back for a fresh decision, to be
passed after summoning and perusing the
lower court record and after hearing all
concerned.
34.
The writ petition no. 56524 of
2015 is allowed in part. The order dated
05.10.2015 insofar as it relates to Revision
Nos. 1686 and 1688 is set aside. This order
will not apply to revision no. 1687 which has
been dismissed vide the order impugned.
35. The writ petition no. 59549 of
2015 is also allowed and the order dated
05.10.2015 is set aside.
36. Both the matters are accordingly
remanded back for passing fresh orders
after
summoning
and
perusing
the
respective lower court records and after
hearing all concerned.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.
C.M.W.P. (PIL) No. 58620 of 2015
Anurag Misra
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Yogesh Mishra
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution of India, Art.-226-(PIL)-
Manufacture, sale and use of Chinese
Manjha-a metallic/nylon yarn-coat of
crushed glass-makes it rajor sharpharmonious to human being animal and
birds-Principal
Secretary
to
pass
necessary
direction-imposing
banpetition disposed of.
Held: Para-8
We clarify that by this order we are not
imposing any ban on the flying of kites but
are issuing necessary directions so that
such material which causes grave danger to
human beings, animals and birds as the
petitioner has highlighted is not used. The
danger and problem is not confined to
Allahabad. Apart from the district of
Allahabad, if the Principal Secretary (Home)
shall
issue
a
communication
to
the
Collectors
of
each
district
containing
directions in implementation of this order.
The directions contained in this order are
not intended to be an exhaustive catalogue.
The State Government shall adopt all
appropriate
steps
for
enforcement
in
accordance with law, including necessary
steps to prohibit manufacture, use and sale
of
"Chinese
Manjha"
in
any
form
whatsoever.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)
1. The petition has been instituted as a
public interest litigation to highlight the
serious dangers to public safety that are being
caused by the use of "Chinese Manjha" as an
appendage to kites. The string or Manjha, it
is stated, is made of metallic/nylon yarn with
an abrasive coat of crushed glass gummed on
it which makes it razor sharp. As a result,
serious injuries are liable to be caused and
are being caused. The petitioner initially
relied upon a report published in the daily
newspaper 'Hindustan' dated 25 September
2015 which indicated that a death had been