# Sher Singh and others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahar and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 382
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-05-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60707 of 2008
- **Bench:** A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sher-singh-and-others-v-dy-director-of-consolidation-bulandshahar-and-others-41492
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Consolidation of Holding Act 1960-48
Chak allotment at the S.O.C. Stage
finalized- petitioner being satisfied not
preferred any revision-D.D.C. altered the
chak-
after
knowledge
filed
recall
application denying the institution of
revision-nor the order sheet bears his
signature
rejection-without
taking
handwriting
expert
opinion-held-not
proper.

Held: Para 7
2 All] Sher Singh and others V. D.D.C., Bulandshahar and others
383
It is apparent that the real issue is as to
whether the petitioner had endorsed his
signature or thumb impression on the
order-sheet or on the memo of revision
as recorded by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation. The said issue could only
have been decided after verifying the
same
and
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation should not have acted as a
handwriting expert. Reference may be
had to the decision in the case of Ram
Sukh Vs. Sughara and others reported in
2000 R.D. (91) 155 Para 7. in view of this
it was incumbent upon the Deputy
Director of Consolidation to have got the
signature not done so, the Deputy
Director of Consolidation has committed
a
patent
error
by
recording
his
conclusions
without
completing
the
formalities of evidence in this regard.
Case Law discussed:
2000 R.D. (91) 155

## Text

382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
be filed only in the court where the first
application with regard to an arbitration
was filed. The necessary corollary of the
same would be that when the court in
which future actions in the matter is to be
taken is known with certainty before hand
then in that case the initial action ought to
be confined to the said pre-determined
court only. Therefore, where the parties
themselves have chosen a particular place
to be the place for arbitration and
proceedings connected thereto (refer
clause 26.4 of the agreement) and the
agreement specifically provides for a
dispute resolution meeting to be held at a
particular place and for the proceedings
thereafter to be within the jurisdiction of
the courts of that particular place, we are
of the view that by virtue of the mandate
of section 42 of the Act all proceedings in
connection with the arbitration shall lie
before that particular court only.

11. Therefore, even in the part of
cause of action, covered by arbitration
clause, arises at Jhansi as per the
definition of the Court contained in
Section 2 (e), Section 9 and Section 42 of
the Act to make the scheme of the Act
workable lead us to hold that the court
having
jurisdiction
to
entertain
applications under Section 9 of the Act
during the arbitral proceedings or after the
making of the award alone would have
exclusive jurisdiction over such an
application even if it is moved before the
start of the arbitration proceedings.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances and the reasons given
we are of the considered view that the
jurisdiction of the court at Jhansi to
entertain an application under Section 9 of
the Act in relation to a subject matter
which is governed by the arbitration
clause stand completely ousted by virtue
of clause 26.4 of the agreement and the
courts at Mumbai alone have the
exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, the
courts below has committed no error in
passing the impugned order and in
relegating the appellant to the jurisdiction
of the Mumbai court.

13. Accordingly, the appeal lacks
merit and is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60707 of 2008

Sher Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Dy.
Director
of
Consolidation,
Bulandshahar and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitionerst:
Sri Brajesh Kumar Solanki
Sri S.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Jai Singh Chandel
Sri V.K. Singh
S.C.

Consolidation of Holding Act 1960-48
Chak allotment at the S.O.C. Stage
finalized- petitioner being satisfied not
preferred any revision-D.D.C. altered the
chak-
after
knowledge
filed
recall
application denying the institution of
revision-nor the order sheet bears his
signature
rejection-without
taking
handwriting
expert
opinion-held-not
proper.

Held: Para 7
2 All] Sher Singh and others V. D.D.C., Bulandshahar and others
383
It is apparent that the real issue is as to
whether the petitioner had endorsed his
signature or thumb impression on the
order-sheet or on the memo of revision
as recorded by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation. The said issue could only
have been decided after verifying the
same
and
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation should not have acted as a
handwriting expert. Reference may be
had to the decision in the case of Ram
Sukh Vs. Sughara and others reported in
2000 R.D. (91) 155 Para 7. in view of this
it was incumbent upon the Deputy
Director of Consolidation to have got the
signature not done so, the Deputy
Director of Consolidation has committed
a
patent
error
by
recording
his
conclusions
without
completing
the
formalities of evidence in this regard.
Case Law discussed:
2000 R.D. (91) 155

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.P. Singh and Sri B.K.
Solanki learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Jai Singh Chandel for the
contesting respondent no. 2.

2. In view of the order that is
proposed to be passed the learned
standing counsel and the learned counsel
for the Gaon Sabha have not proposed to
file any counter affidavit. The parties are
agreed that the matter be disposed of at
this stage finally without calling for any
further affidavits from either of the
parties. Accordingly, the matter is being
disposed of finally under the rules of the
Court.

3. Sri S.P. Singh learned counsel for
the
petitioner
contended
that
the
allotments which had been made at the
stage
of
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation in respect of plot no. 87/1,
the petitioner was not aggrieved. Learned
counsel for the petitioner contends, that in
the event there was no grievance on
behalf of the petitioner, then there was no
occasion for him to have filed any
revision
against
the
order
of
the
Settlement Office Consolidation. It is
further submitted that when the petitioner
came to know of passing of the order
dated 18.8.2008 by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation he rushed up to this Court
and filed Writ Petition No. 5097 of 2008
questioning the said order on the ground
that the petitioner had never filed any
revision nor had he sought any relief in
respect of the plot no. 87/1. The said writ
petition was dismissed with liberty to the
petitioner
to
approach
the
Deputy
Director of Consolidation for the redressal
of his grievances. Accordingly, the
petitioner filed restoration application any
copy of affidavit filed in support of the
said restoration application is appended as
Annexure 7 to the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that a clear stand was taken
before
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation that the petitioner never
thereon and the same is forged and having
attempted by an imposer. Therefore, the
order should be recalled and the revision
should be dismissed.

5.

The
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation has recorded a finding that
according to the order-sheet of the said
revision, it appears that the petitioner had
endorsed
his
signature
and
thumb
impression and even otherwise on merits
since the order had been passed after
making a spot inspection, therefore, the
restoration
application
was
not
maintainable and it was accordingly
rejected. Aggrieved the petitioner filed
this writ petition questioning the validity
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
of the said order on the ground that there
was no occasion for the petitioner to file
the revision, as he was satisfied with the
Consolidation and secondly, there was no
occasion for the Deputy Director of
Consolidation to have reversed the said
position to the detriment of the petitioner
and to the complete advantage of the
contesting respondent no. 2.

6. Sri J.C. Chandel has urged that
the said findings have been recorded by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation
after perusing the records and they are
findings of fact, which should not be
interfered with under Article 226 of the
Consolidation.

7. It is apparent that the real issue is
as to whether the petitioner had endorsed
his signature or thumb impression on the
order-sheet or on the memo of revision as
recorded by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation. The said issue could only
have been decided after verifying the
same and the Deputy Director of
Consolidation should not have acted as a
handwriting expert. Reference may be had
to the decision in the case of Ram Sukh
Vs. Sughara and others reported in 2000
R.D. (91) 155 Para 7. In view of this it
was incumbent upon the Deputy Director
of Consolidation to have got the signature
not done so, the Deputy Director of
Consolidation has committed a patent
error by recording his conclusions without
completing the formalities of evidence in
this regard.

8. Accordingly, the order dated
7.11.2008 is unsustainable and is set
aside. The matter stands remitted back to
the Deputy Director of Consolidation for
decision afresh in the light of the
observations made here in above. The
Writ petition is allowed. No order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24290 of 2009

Committee of Management of Pandit
Ram Dev Mishra Intermediate College
Khaptiha, District Allahabad...Petitioners
Versus
State and another
...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri L.K. Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Recognised Basic School (Junior
High School Recruitment and Condition
of Teachers)Rules 1978-Rule 9-after
retirement of one Assistant Teacher-
management send information seeking
permission to hold selection and to get
the nominee of Basic Education Officer -
Refusal even after the direction of Courtunfortunate- G.O. relied by the BSA
already quashed- can not be defence to
BSA-
held-
to
give
permission
by
forthwith
along
with
one
nomineedirector to call explanation from erring
officer.

Held: Para 10-

Since the order has been passed in the
teeth of the judgement of this Court
passed in the case of Committee of
management of Vishva Nath Vidyalaya
Mundera, Allahabad (supra), which has
also been noticed by the Zila Basic
Shiksha Adhikari in its order dated
17.02.2009 but he has refused to comply
with the direction issued by this Court, it
is directed that a copy of this judgment