# Satya Narain v. Deputy Director of the Consolidation and Others

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 1040
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-16
- **Case number:** Writ - B No. 679 of 2019
- **Bench:** Rajiv Joshi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satya-narain-v-deputy-director-of-the-consolidation-and-others-44397
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953-Rule 111 is directory and not
mandatory.
Section 48 (1) - Revision- Dismissed by
DDC holding non-compliance of Rule 111
of U.P Consolidation of Holding Rules,
1954 - The question for consideration in
the present case is with regard to the
compliance of Rule 111-Held, sufficient
explanation was given by the petitioner
before DDC for not filing the certified
copy of the order passed by CO - (Paras
18 to 24)

Writ petition allowed. (E-6)

## Text

1040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
farmer. The reason obviously is that the
land being a lease land, the rights of a
lessee have to be regulated in a manner
which may advance the object and
purpose of the Act. Thus, the prior
approval of the Assistant Collector is
contemplated which is obviously to
consider and decide as to whether
permission can be accorded and the
transfer which is sought, is in accordance
with the Scheme of Sub-section (1) of
Section 157-AA.

20. In view of the discussion made
above, this Court is of the considered view
that permission is also required when a
transfer is made by a person belonging to
Scheduled Caste who has become bhumidhar
with transferable right under Section 131-B in
favour of a person belonging to Scheduled
Caste. In the present case, the transfer was
made
without
obtaining
previous
approval/permission of Assistant Collector
concerned. The words " except with the
previous approval" used in sub section (4) of
section 157-AA, indicates that approval of the
Assistant Collector concerned is a condition
precedent for such transfer.

21. The judgment in the case of
Ramey (Supra) relied on by the counsel
for petitioner is on the different facts in
which even the mandatory restriction
contained in Sub-Section (4) of Section
157-AA,
has
not
been
considered.
Therefore, any decision delivered without
taking
into
consideration
even
the
mandatory provision, cannot be said to be
laying down a good law and hence this
Court has no hesitation in holding the said
judgment to be per incuriam.

22. In view of the above discussion,
there appears to be no illegality or
infirmity in the orders impugned dated
4.7.2011 and 20.10.2011 contained in
annexure 6 & 8 to the writ petition.

23. In the result, the writ petition
lacks
merit
and
is,
accordingly,
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV JOSHI, J.

Writ - B No. 679 of 2019

Satya Narain ...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director of the Consolidation and
Others ...Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kailash Nath Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi,
SriS.C. Tripathi, Sri S.N. Tripathi.

A. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953-Rule 111 is directory and not
mandatory.
Section 48 (1) - Revision- Dismissed by
DDC holding non-compliance of Rule 111
of U.P Consolidation of Holding Rules,
1954 - The question for consideration in
the present case is with regard to the
compliance of Rule 111-Held, sufficient
explanation was given by the petitioner
before DDC for not filing the certified
copy of the order passed by CO - (Paras
18 to 24)

Writ petition allowed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi, J.)

1. Present writ petition has been
filed
challenging
the
order
dated
1 All. Satya Narain Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others
1041
29.3.2019 passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Jaunpur in Revision No.
3135 of 2017-18, whereby the revision
filed by the petitioner under Section 48
(1) of U.P. Consolidation & Holdings
Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as an
Act), was dismissed.

2. Brief facts involved in the present
writ petition are that in a proceeding
under Section 9A (2) of the Act initiated
by the petitioner, an order dated 8.3.2013
was passed by Consolidation Officer,
Sadar, Jaunpur, whereby the objection
filed by the petitioner was allowed.
Against that order, respondent no.4Shankar and 3 others (respondent nos. 5
to 7) filed an appeal before the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation, Jaunpur under
Section 11 (1) of the Act, registered as
Appeal No. 2202/2016-17, which was
allowed vide order dated 18.5.2017.

3. Being aggrieved against the order
dated 18.5.2017 passed by Settlement
Officer of Consolidation, Jaunpur, the
petitioner and his brothers filed a revision
on 7.6.2017 under Section 48 (1) of the
Act,
registered
as
Revision
No.
3135/2017-18.
Subsequently,
an
application was filed by respondent no.4
on 16.3.2019 on the ground that revision
filed by the petitioner is incompetent as
the certified copy of the order passed by
Consolidation Officer has not been
annexed or filed alongwith memo of
revision and therefore, in view of Rule
111 of U.P.C.H. Rules, 1954 (hereinafter
referred to as Rules), the memo of
revision be rejected as incompetent and
defective and barred by provisions of
Rule 111 of the Rules.

4.

After
filing
the
said
application, raising objection for noncompliance of Rule 111 of the Rules, the
petitioner filed an application dated
19.3.2019 annexing the certified copy of
the order passed by Consolidation Officer
stating therein that the revision was filed
challenging the order passed by the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation and
the certified copy of the said order was
annexed alongwith the memo of revision.
But since the order of the Consolidation
Officer was not under challenge and
therefore, the said order could not be
annexed alongwith the memo of revision.
It was further stated in the application that
in order to avoid technicalities, the
petitioner has filed the certified copy of
the order, which may be taken on record
and the revision be decided on merits.

5. The revisional court vide
impugned
order
dated
29.3.2019
dismissed the revision at the admission
stage on the ground that the petitioner has
not explained the reasons for not filing the
certified copy of the order passed by
Consolidation Officer, which he obtained
in the year 2013 and no sufficient cause
for delay has been explained and
therefore, the order was passed dismissing
the revision.

6. The order passed by Deputy
Director of Consolidation dated 29.3.2019
rejecting the revision filed by the
petitioner is impugned in the present writ
petition.

7. I have heard Sri Kailash Nath
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri
S.C.
Tripathi,
learned
counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no.4
and perused the record.

8. Contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that there is
1042 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sufficient compliance of Rule 111 of
the Rules as the memo of revision
accompanied the order passed by
Settlement Officer of Consolidation,
which was impugned in the revision.
According
to
the
counsel,
subsequently, the certified copy of the
order passed by Consolidation Officer
was also filed when the objection was
raised by the respondent no.4 for noncompliance of Rule 111 of the Rules
and therefore, it cannot be said that
there is no compliance of Rule 111 of
the Rules and the revision could not
have been dismissed on that ground.

9. It was further contended by
learned counsel for the petitioner that
the revision cannot be decided on
mere technicalities and the view taken
by
the
revisional
authority
is
hypertechnical, which is totally unjust
and uncalled for.

10. In support of his contention,
he placed reliance upon the judgment
rendered in the case of Hari Narain
and others Vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation and others 1981 (2) RD
341, Ram Naresh Vs. Deputy Director
of Consolidation and others 2019
(142) RD 83and in case of Ram Deo
and another Vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Basti and others 2004
(97) RD 211.

11. On the other hand, learned
counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
respondent no.4 submitted that there is
no sufficient compliance of Rule 111
of the Rules and delay in filing the
order of Consolidation Officer has not
been explained by the petitioner and
therefore, in absence of appropriate
explanation, the impugned order has
rightly been passed. He relied upon
the judgment of Division Bench of this
Court passed in case of Ram Nath and
others
Vs.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Gyanpur,
Varanasi
and others 1971 RD 51.

12. I have considered the rival
submissions and perused the record.

13. The question for consideration in
the present case is with regard to the
compliance of Rule 111 of the Rules made
under Section 54 of the Act, which reads as
under:

"111. Sections 48 and 54. - An
application under Section 48 of the Act shall
be presented by the applicant or his duly
authorised agent to the Joint/Deputy/Assistant
Director of Consolidation, nominated by the
Director of Consolidation, Uttar Pradesh for
the
District
or
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation) unit concerned or failing
posting of any such Joint/Deputy/Assistant
Director of Consolidation in the district, to the
District Deputy Director (Consolidation)
within 30 days of the order against which the
application
is
directed.
It
shall
be
accompanied by copy of the judgment or
order in respect of which the application is
preferred. Copies of judgment or order, if any,
of other subordinate authorities in respect of
dispute shall also be filed alongwith the
application."

14. An analysis of this Rule makes it
clear that a revision filed under Section 48 of
the Act is to be filed within 30 days of the
order passed against which the revision is
directed. The Rule further requires that
memorandum
of
revision
shall
be
accompanied by the copy of the judgment and
the order in respect of which the revision
preferred. This Rule further requires that copy
1 All. Satya Narain Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others
1043
of the judgment and order, if any, of the
subordinate authority in respect of dispute
shall also be filed alongwith the revision.

15. Therefore, the requirement of Rule
insofar as the filing of the copy of judgment
and order against which the revision is
preferred is concerned, it is clear that such
copy of the judgment and order must be
accompanied with the memorandum of
revision.

16. The word 'accompany' used in
this part of the Rule is significant. So far
as the other requirement for filing copy of
the judgment and order of another
subordinate authority is concerned, the
Rule requires that such copy of the
judgment and order has to be filed
alongwith the application and the word
'accompany' is significantly absent so far
as this requirement is concerned. The
Rule making authority by not using the
word 'accompany' in the latter part of the
requirement, must be intended to mean
the Rule is not requiring such copies of
judgments and orders of the subordinate
authorities necessarily to accompany the
memorandum of revision. The Rule so
read is on the fact of it salutary in nature.
The intention of Rule making authority
appears to be that though the judgment
and order under revision alone is
necessarily required to accompany the
memorandum of revision, but the copies
of other judgments and orders be also
made available to the revisional authority
at the time when the matter comes up for
consideration before the authority.

17. In the present case, the order,
which is under challenge in the revision is
accompanied by memo of revision, but
the certified copy of the order passed by
Consolidation Officer, which was not
challenged in the revision, was finally
filed by the petitioner alongwith an
application on 19.3.2019 stating therein
that the same could not be filed earlier as
the said order was not under challenge
and in order to avoid the technicalities,
certified copy of the said order of
Consolidation Officer is being filed
alongwith an application and the revision
be decided on merits. The contents of the
application dated 19.3.2019 filed by the
petitioner, appended as annexure-5 to the
writ petition, is quoted as under:

U;k;ky; Mh0Mh0lh0 tkSuiqjA

fu0 'khryk&&&&cuke&&&&'kadj

a xzke getkiqj ijxuk gosyh tkSuiqjA

Jheku th]

lfou; fuosnu gS fd
izkFkhZ us c0v0p0 }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds fo:)
fuxjkuh izLrqr fd;k gS rFkk c0v0p0 ds vkns'k
dh udy fuxjkuh ls lkFk layXu fd;k gS
p0v0 }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ge fuxjkuh drkZ ds
i{k jgk mls pqukSrh ugha fn;k x;k gS bl otg
ls nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;kA

;g fd nkSjku lquokbZ
foi{khx.k us dgk fd fu;e 111 dk ikyu ugha
fd;k x;k p0v0 ds vkns'k dh izfrfyfi nkf[ky
ugha gS bl fcUnq ij fuxjkuh fujLr dh tkos
bl fcUnq ij ekuuh; gkbZ dksVZ bykgkckn us
dbZ O;oLFkkvksa eas vkj0Mh0 1968 i`"B 357
ckcwjke cuke Jherh vkj0Mh0 1981 ist 341
gjh ujk;u cuke Mh0Mh0lh0 vkj0Mh0 2004
ist 211 jkenso cuke Mh0Mh0lh0 o vkj0Mh0
2009 ist 402 oDQ rkfd;ku cuke fnyhi flag
esa Li"V fd;kA

pwWfd eqdnesa esa rduhdh
fcUnqvksa ls cpus gsrq rFkk U;k;fgr esa vuko';d
foyEc ls cpus gsrq fuxjkuh drkZ vkns'k dh
udy izLrqr dj jgk gS ftls Lohdkj djds
lquokbZ gsrq xzg.k fd;k tk;sA

vr%
izkFkZuk
gS
fd
mijksDr O;oLFkkvksa ds lanHkZ esa fuxjkuh esa izkFkhZ
1044 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
}kjk izLrqr udy vkns'k p0v0 dks 'kkfey
djrs gq;s fuxjkuh lquokbZ gsrq fd;k tk;sA

izkFkhZ %&

'khryk izlkn

18. Reasons for non filing the
certified
copy
of
the
order
of
Consolidation Officer have sufficiently
been explained in the application. In the
case of Jagdeo Prasad Vs. Assistant
Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow
and others 1975 RD 277, the certified
copy of the order of Consolidation Officer
had been filed and was available before
the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the
date of hearing of the revision. The
learned Single Judge of this Court held
that the revision was not rendered
incompetent merely because the copy of
the order of the Consolidation Officer did
not accompany the revision application
when it was filed. It was held that justice
required that the Assistant Director should
have decided the dispute on merits.

19. In case of Ram Naresh (supra),
it was held that Deputy Director of
Consolidation should not dismiss the
revision petitions on technicalities; rather
he should tilt himself towards examining
the record on merits and pass appropriate
orders to secure the ends of justice.
Relevant portion of the said judgment is
quoted as under:

"As has been laid down by this
Court on several occasions, the Deputy
Director of Consolidation should not
dismiss
the
revision
petitions
on
technicalities; rather he should tilt
himself towards examining the record on
merit and pass appropriate orders to
secure the ends of justice. In fact the
provisions of Section 48 (1) of the Act are
couched in such a language which confers
a power or jurisdiction on the Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
and
for
exercise of such power an application
need not necessarily be made. The
jurisdiction vested in the Deputy Director
of Consolidation is akin to revisional
jurisdiction."

20. Paragraph 5 of the judgment
rendered in the case of Ram Deo (supra),
which was relied by learned counsel for
the petitioner, is quoted as under:

"It is well settled that if entire
record was before Deputy Director of
Consolidation, a revision could not be
dismissed as incompetent on the ground
of non-filing of certified copy of the order
of Consolidation Officer, being violative
of Rule 111 of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Rules as laid down by Full
Bench in Ramakant Singh v. Deputy
Director of Consolidation."

21. In case of Ram Nath (supra), it
was held that non-filing of certified copy
of the order of Consolidation Officer does
not rather violate the Rule 111 of the
Rules. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the respondent relied upon the relevant
portion judgment in the case of Ram
Nath, which is quoted hereunder:

"We find no manifest error of
law in this order. Even if R. 111 is held
directory, that will only mean that a
person who wants to file a revision may
comply with it substantially. The last part
of this Rule requires that copies of
judgments and order, if any, shall also be
filed with the memorandum of Revision. If
the Rule is directory, an applicant may
file the copies subsequently, and the
Director can, in a fit case, accept the
1 All. Satya Narain Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others
1045
same even if they had been filed at the
proper time. But the fact that the Rule is
directory does not confer an absolute
right on a litigant to violate the Rule and
file the copies whenever he wants. The
directory nature of the Rule will only
enable the Director to entertain a copy
even if filed beyond time if he is satisfied
that the case is a fit one for doing so. In
that even, the Director wil have to go into
the merits of the explanation offered by
the litigant for the delay in filing the copy;
and if on facts, the Director is satisfied
that the cause shown is not sufficient, he
would be within his powers in refusing to
entertain such a defective revision. In the
present case, the Deputy Director of
Consolidation applied his mind to the
explanation offered by the petitioners and
was not satisfied that the delay has been
satisfactorily explained."

22. From perusal of the aforesaid
judgment passed by Division Bench of
this Court, it is apparent that Rule 111 of
the Rules is held to be directory and not
mandatory. If the Rule is directory,
application may be filed alongwith
certified
copies
of
the
judgments
subsequently and it will only enable the
Director of Consolidation to entertain the
copy even if the application is beyond
time, if he is satisfied that the case is fit
one for doing so.

23. In the present case, sufficient
explanation had been given by the
petitioner vide his application dated
19.3.2019, which is quoted above and in
the said application, the reason for not
filing the said copy earlier alongwith
memo of revision has been explained
satisfactorily. The word 'accompany' as
mentioned in the first part of Rule 111 of
the Rules has been explained, meaning
thereby the copy of order which is not
challenged in revision can be filed
subsequently alongwith the application.

24. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation has committed illegality
while holding that the certified copy of
the order of Consolidation Officer was
issued in 2013 and there is no justification
for not filing the same alongwith memo of
revision.
The
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation is not at all justified while
holding so when there is no requirement
under Rule 111 of the Rules to
accompany the order, which was not
challenged in revision. The certified copy
of the order of the Consolidation Officer
having been filed subsequently alongwith
an application furnishing explanation, I
hold that sufficient explanation has been
given by the petitioner for non filing that
certified copy of the order earlier. Even
otherwise, it is also well settled that the
revision cannot be dismissed on the
technicalities, rather the order should be
passed on merits in order to deliver justice
to the parties.

25. For the aforesaid reasons,
present writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The impugned order dated
29.3.2019 passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Jaunpur in Revision No.
3135 of 2017-18 is hereby quashed. The
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Jaunpur is directed to decide the revision
afresh on merits in accordance with law
expeditiously within maximum period of
six months from the date of presentation
of certified copy of this order, after
affording opportunity of hearing to the
parties.

26. No order as to costs.
----------
1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J

Writ - B No. 9003 of 1997

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Asthana, Sri Amit Malik, Sri Ashish
Gopal, Sri B. Malik, Sri P.K. Asthana, Sri
P.K.
Srivastava,
Sri
Pawan
Kumar
Srivastava, Sri S.C. Pandey, Sri S.K.
Dubey, Sri Sanjay Mishra, Sri Satyam
Shah, Sri Siddharth Pandey.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Deepika Sharma, Sri Hriday Raj
Tripathi, Sri Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi, Sri
Sankatha Rai, Sri Sudhir Malhotra, Sri V.K.
Rai, Sri Vikrant Rana, Sri Y.D. Sharma,
N.C. Rajvanshi, Sri P.K. Shukla, Sri Sudhir
Mehrotra

A. Fraud would vitiate a solemn
transaction recorded in howsoever
solemn proceedings.
Issue required to be decided by the D.D.C
while deciding revision- whether the
compromise which the D.D.C verified on
24.10.1985 was indeed a fraudulent
compromise
or
a
genuine
compact
between parties - instead he recorded
findings, that are irrelevant and nongermane
to
this
principle
issue
alone(Paras 11 to 16). Fraud would vitiate
a
solemn
transaction
recorded
in
howsoever solemn proceedings (Paras 18
to 19). Impugned order passed by DDC is
manifestly
illegal,
and
cannot
be
sustained

Writ Petition allowed (E-6)
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Heard Sri B. Malik, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri
N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri P.C. Shukla, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.3. Sri Y.D. Sharma, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no.5,
Sri
Vikrant
Rana,
learned
counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no.4,
and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel
representing the Administrator General.

2. This writ petition has been filed
by the original petitioner, one Kalu Ram
son of Sri Bhajjan, now represented by his
heirs and legal representatives, petitioner
nos.1/2/1, 1/2/2 and 1/2/3, challenging an
order
of
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Ghaziabad
dated
27.02.1997, whereby he has allowed
Revision
no.507
filed
by
original
respondent no.2, Smt. Risalo, and set
aside an order dated 10.09.1990 passed by
the Consolidation Officer. By the order
last mentioned the Consolidation Officer
acting on a compromise dated 24.07.1987,
and verified by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, had recorded shares of
parties in the Consolidation Records. Also
set aside by the impugned order is an
order, dated 03.09.1993 passed by the
Consolidation
Officer,
Ghaziabad,
rejecting an application on behalf of Smt.
Risalo to set aside the order dated
10.07.1990, by which the compromise
was implemented. The Deputy Director in
the same stroke also set at naught an order
dated
26.08.1996
passed
by
the
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation
dismissing an appeal under Section 11(1)
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
carried by respondent no.2 from the order
of the Consolidation Officer, refusing to