# Ram Surat v. D.D.C. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1362
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-10-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54399 of 2012
- **Bench:** Ran Vijai Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-surat-v-d-d-c-and-others-42413
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act-1953Section 42-A-Revisional Court-set-a-side
the order passed by C.O.-on ground the
order of correction alterations in Chak in
garb of correction-beyond jurisdictionWrit Court declined to interfere.

Held: Para-7

Here in the present case, as has been
observed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, the Consolidation Officer
while passing the impugned order dated
6.11.2001
has
not
corrected
the
arithmetical or clerical error but he has
amended the chak of the petitioner
which, in his opinion, was not ambit of
Section 42 (A). I am of the view that the
view taken by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation cannot be said to be
unjustified for the simple reason that the
order passed by the Consolidation Officer
will not fall in the ambit of correction of
clerical or arithmetical error but he has
done the amendment in the chak.
Therefore, the order passed by him in my
considered
opinion
is
without
jurisdiction.
Case Law discussed:
(1997) 9 SCC 69; AIR 2011 SC 514; Special
Appeal No. 164 of 2012 Committee of
3 All] Ram Surat V. D.D.C. and others
1363
Management Shri Jawahar Inter College and
another Vs. State of U.P. and others

## Text

1362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
meters away from the Masjid and
ensure that there is no disturbance
amongst the residents of the village.
Since the petitioner was proposing to
hold Durga Puja on his own plot which
was measuring 650 Sq. meters, and the
petitioner is not being permitted to hold
Puja on the said plot, as such, we direct
that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
respondent no. 3 shall ensure that
adequate land measuring about 500 Sq.
meters shall be provided to the
petitioner at a distance of around 0.5
kilometers from the Masjid of the
village where the Durga Puja can be
held for the remaining period. Such
arrangement shall be ensured by the
respondent no. 3 within 24 hours of the
petitioner filing a certified copy of this
order before the respondent no. 3. The
petitioner
undertakes
that
the
performance of the Durga Puja will be
peaceful
and
without
use
of
loudspeakers.

9. This writ petition stands
allowed to the extent indicated as
above. No order as to costs.

10. Let a copy of this order be
issued to the learned counsel for the
parties today on payment of usual
charges.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54399 of 2012

Ram Surat

...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. And Others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chandra Shekhar Srivastav
Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act-1953Section 42-A-Revisional Court-set-a-side
the order passed by C.O.-on ground the
order of correction alterations in Chak in
garb of correction-beyond jurisdictionWrit Court declined to interfere.

Held: Para-7

Here in the present case, as has been
observed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, the Consolidation Officer
while passing the impugned order dated
6.11.2001
has
not
corrected
the
arithmetical or clerical error but he has
amended the chak of the petitioner
which, in his opinion, was not ambit of
Section 42 (A). I am of the view that the
view taken by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation cannot be said to be
unjustified for the simple reason that the
order passed by the Consolidation Officer
will not fall in the ambit of correction of
clerical or arithmetical error but he has
done the amendment in the chak.
Therefore, the order passed by him in my
considered
opinion
is
without
jurisdiction.
Case Law discussed:
(1997) 9 SCC 69; AIR 2011 SC 514; Special
Appeal No. 164 of 2012 Committee of
3 All] Ram Surat V. D.D.C. and others
1363
Management Shri Jawahar Inter College and
another Vs. State of U.P. and others

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.)

1. Through this writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ
of certiorari quashing the order dated
22.5.2012 passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation (in short D.D.C) by
which he has allowed the revisions
being Revision No. 1674 Surya Narain
and others Vs. Ram Surat and others
and Revision No. 1940 Sachidanand Vs.
Surya Narain and others. The said
revisions were filed against order dated
6.11.2001
passed
by
Consolidation
Officer in Case No. 307 under Section
42 (A) of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act'). The D.D.C. allowed the
revision on the ground that the order
impugned in the revisions was beyond
the scope of Section 42 (A) as by that
order, amendment has been made in the
chak which is beyond the scope of
Section 42 (A) of the Act.

2. Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
vehemently contended that the order
passed by the Consolidation Officer is
on merit and there was nothing to
disturb the aforesaid order even if the
Deputy Director of Consolidation was
of the opinion that the order could not
have been passed under Section 42 (A).
It is also contended that the Deputy
Director of Consolidation has ample
power under sub-Section 1 of Section
48 to do justice to the parties by the
summoning the record of the courts
below even if the order passed by the
C.O. was without jurisdiction.

3. On the contrary, learned
Standing Counsel has submitted that
since the application was filed under
Section 42 (A) and the Deputy Director
of Consolidation was only examining
the illegality or impropriety in the order
passed by the Consolidation Officer
therefore it cannot be said that the order
passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation is anyway illegal order.
In his submissions, the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.

4.

For
appreciating
the
controversy, the language used in
Section 42 (A) would be necessary to be
looked into which is reproduced herein
under :-

Correction
of
clerical
or
arithmetical errors. Notwithstanding
anything contained in any law for the
time being in force, if the Consolidation
Officer
or
the
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation is satisfied that a clerical
or arithmetical error apparent on the
fact of the record exists in any document
prepared under any provision of this
Act, he shall, either on his own motion,
or on the application of any person
interest, correct the same.

5. From the perusal of the
language used in Section 42 (A) it is
apparent that if the Consolidation
Officer or the Settlement Officer,
Consolidation is satisfied that a clerical
or arithmetical error apparent on the
face of the record exists in any
document prepared under any provision
of this Act, he shall, either on his own
motion, or on the application of any
person interested, correct the same. This
section not only confers right upon the
litigant to approach the Consolidation
1364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Officer/Settlement
Officer
Consolidation for correction of the
clerical or arithmetical error, but it also
confers suo motu power upon the
consolidation authorities to correct the
clerical or arithmetical error if they find
it while examining the record of any
proceeding. In Section 42 (A), the word
'correct' has been mentioned which
amounts to correction of defects. The
word correction has been defined in
Law Lexicon the Encyclopaedic Law
Dictionary ( Justice YV Chandrachud)
1997 Edition as under :-

Removal,
amendment,
errors,
defects, mistakes.

6. From the perusal of the meaning
of the word 'correction" it is clear that it
is removal of defects and it does not
include any addition or deletion.

7. Here in the present case, as has
been observed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation, the Consolidation
Officer while passing the impugned
order dated 6.11.2001 has not corrected
the arithmetical or clerical error but he
has amended the chak of the petitioner
which, in his opinion, was not ambit of
Section 42 (A). I am of the view that the
view taken by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation cannot be said to be
unjustified for the simple reason that the
order passed by the Consolidation
Officer will not fall in the ambit of
correction of clerical or arithmetical
error but he has done the amendment in
the chak. Therefore, the order passed by
him in my considered opinion is without
jurisdiction. The Apex Court in the case
of Union of India Vs. Sube Ram and
Ors reported in (1997) 9 SCC 69 has
held thus :

5. [...] here is the case of
entertaining the application itself; in
other words, the question of jurisdiction
of the court. Since the appellate court
has no power to amend the decree and
grant the enhanced compensation by
way of solatium and interest under
section 23(2) and proviso to Section 28
of the Act, as amended by Act 68 of
1984, it is a question of jurisdiction of
the
court.
Since
courts
have
no
jurisdiction, it is the settled legal
position that it is a nullity and it can be
raised at any stage.

21. In yet another case of Amrit
Bhikaji Kale and Ors. V. Kashinath
Janardhan Trade and Anr's reported in
(1983) 3 SCC 437 this Court has held
that
when
a
Tribunal
of
limited
jurisdiction
erroneously
assumes
jurisdiction by ignoring a statutory
provision and its consequences in law
on the status of parties or by a decision
are wholly unwarranted with regard to
the jurisdictional fact, its decision is a
nullity and its validity can be raised in
collateral proceeding.

22. In Balvant N. Viswamitra and
Ors. V. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead)
through Lrs. and Ors. reported in
(2004) 8 SCC 706 this Court stated
thus:

9. The main question which arises
for our consideration is whether the
decree passed by the trial court can be
said to be "null" and "void". In our
opinion, the law on the point is well
settled. The distinction between a
decree which is void and a decree which
is wrong, incorrect, irregular or not in
accordance
with
law
cannot
be
overlooked or ignored. Where a court
3 All] Ram Surat V. D.D.C. and others
1365
lacks inherent jurisdiction in passing a
decree or making an order, a decree or
order passed by such court would be
without jurisdiction, nonest and void
abinitio. A defect of jurisdiction of the
court goes to the root of the matter and
strikes at the very authority of the court
to pass a decree or make an order. Such
defect has always been treated as basic
and fundamental and a decree or order
passed by a court or an authority
having no jurisdiction is a nullity.
Validity of such decree or order can be
challenged at any stage, even in
execution or collateral proceedings.

23. In Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka
(deceased) through LRs. V. Jasjit Singh
and Ors. reported in (1993) 2 SCC 507
this Court stated thus:

18. It is settled law that a decree
passed by a court without jurisdiction
on the subject-matter or on the grounds
on which the decree made while goes to
the root of its jurisdiction or lacks
inherent jurisdiction is coram non
judice. A decree passed by such a court
is a nullity and is non est. Its invalidity
can be set up whenever it is sought to be
enforced or is acted upon as a
foundation for a right, even at the stage
of
execution
or
in
collateral
proceedings. The defect of jurisdiction
strikes at the very authority of the court
to pass decree which cannot be cured by
consent or waiver of the party ....."

8. The same view has been
reiterated in AIR 2011 SC 514 Sarup
Singh and another vs. Union of India
and another whereas the Apex Court
has observed as under :-

"19. But, it a decree is found to be
nullity, the same could be challenged
and interfered with at any subsequent
stage, say, at the execution stage or
even in a collateral proceeding. This is
in view of the fact that if a particular
Court lacks inherent jurisdiction in
passing a decree or making an order, a
decree or order passed by such Court
would be without jurisdiction and the
same is nonest and void abinitio.

20. The aforesaid position is wellsettled and not open for any dispute as
the defect of jurisdiction strikes at the
very root and authority of the Court to
pass decree which cannot be cured by
consent or waiver of the parties. This
Court
in
several
decisions
has
specifically laid down that validity of
any such decree or order could be
challenged at any stage.

9. This Court while deciding the
Special Appeal No. 164 of 2012
Committee
of
Management
Shri
Jawahar Inter College and another Vs.
State of U.P. and others has also taken
the same view by observing as under :-

Jurisdiction
can
neither
be
assumed nor presumed nor conferred
nor acquired by acquiescence of the
parties.

10. In view of the foregoing
discussions, I am not inclined to
interfere with impugned order passed by
learned D.D.C. The writ petition is
dismissed. However the dismissal of the
writ petition will not preclude the
petitioner to approach the appropriate
court/authority for redressal of his
grievance under the provisions of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
1366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
and the Rules framed thereunder in the
year 1954. In case such an application is
filed along with certified copy of the
order
of
this
Court
before
the
appropriate court/authority, he shall
look into the same and pass appropriate
order in accordance with law after
hearing all concerned within a period of
six months from the date of filing of
such application .

11. It may be clarified that I have
neither
addressed
myself
on
the
maintainability of the application nor its
merit and the appropriate court/authority
is free to pass independent order in
accordance with law.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.55711 OF 2012

Adeed Nawaz

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rakesh Pande
Sri Madan Lal Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri S.S. Singh

Constitution of India-Art-226- Change of
option-on allegations the restrictions
contained in clause 31 of Admission
Guide-ultra vires-petitioner once taken
admission in B.A.L.L.B. Course-based
upon his first preference-can not be
permitted to turned around-giving three
options to ensure getting admissionmandamus for alteration can not be
issued.

Held: Para 11

Coming to the argument with regard to
the vires of paragraphs 31 and 32 this
court is clearly of the opinion that it does
not
suffer
from
any
arbitrariness,
inasmuch as, such a clause has been
included to secure the final option of a
candidate who after getting admission
should not be allowed to change the
same. This in no way prejudices a
candidate who has already been given
three options and he has availed of the
benefit of admission accordingly. This
also facilitates the adjustment of options
of the candidates.
Case Law discussed:
(2008) 4 SCC 171

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has been admitted in
the B.A. LL.B. Course of the Aligarh
Muslim University and has been allocated
the campus of Malappuram in Kerala. The
petitioner while filling his option had given
his first preference for the Aligarh
University Campus, for Murshidabad in
West Bengal in the second place and
Malappuram Kerala in the third place.

3. The revision of such an option is
governed by Clause 31 of the Guide to
Admissions 2012-13 quoted herein under:-

"31.
A
candidate
provisionally
admitted to a Course/ Branch/ Main
Subject/ Stream/ Specialization of lower
preference
as
mentioned
in
the
Application Form, may be upgraded to