# Surya Baksh Singh v. D.D.C., Ayodhya & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 1114
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-23
- **Case number:** Consolidation No. 21059 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surya-baksh-singh-v-d-d-c-ayodhya-ors-47345
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 48(1) -
Revision against interlocutory order is not
maintainable - 'Interlocutory order' 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
proceeding

Consolidation Officer after hearing parties on
06.02.2021 fixed date for disposal on the point
of limitation - against which opposite parties
filed revision - D.D.C. admitted the revision and
stayed further proceedings before Consolidation
Officer - Held - by order dated 06.02.2021
nothing was decided by Consolidation Officer,
only date was fixed for disposal on the matter of
limitation - order dated 06.02.2021 does not
decide any lis nor touches on any important
right or liability of any of the parties - order
dated 06.02.2021, being interlocutory revision
against it was not maintainable under S. 48 (1)
of the Act, 1953 (Para 13, 14)

Allowed.(E-5)

List of Cases cited :

1.Veeresh
Singh
Vs
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Farrukhabad & ors. 2013 (3) ADJ
702

## Text

1114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
party no.1 is directed to pass a fresh order
in
accordance
with
law
and
the
observations made here-in-above in this
order. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1114
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Consolidation No. 21059 of 2021

Surya Baksh Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C., Ayodhya & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Himanshu Kumar Bachhil, Anjani Nath
Khare, Illegible, L.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mohiddin Khan

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 48(1) -
Revision against interlocutory order is not
maintainable - 'Interlocutory order' 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
proceeding

Consolidation Officer after hearing parties on
06.02.2021 fixed date for disposal on the point
of limitation - against which opposite parties
filed revision - D.D.C. admitted the revision and
stayed further proceedings before Consolidation
Officer - Held - by order dated 06.02.2021
nothing was decided by Consolidation Officer,
only date was fixed for disposal on the matter of
limitation - order dated 06.02.2021 does not
decide any lis nor touches on any important
right or liability of any of the parties - order
dated 06.02.2021, being interlocutory revision
against it was not maintainable under S. 48 (1)
of the Act, 1953 (Para 13, 14)

Allowed.(E-5)

List of Cases cited :

1.Veeresh
Singh
Vs
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Farrukhabad & ors. 2013 (3) ADJ
702

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Himanshu Kumar
Bachhil, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing
Counsel for opposite party nos. 1, 2 & 6,
Sri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 4. Sri Mohan Singh
has accepted notice on behalf of the Gram
Sabha-opposite party no. 5.

2. For the order proposed to be
passed, issuance of notice to opposite party
no. 3 is dispensed with.

3. The petitioner filed an application
under Rule 109-A (1) of the Uttar Pradesh
Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954,
which was time barred and, as such, an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act was filed for condonation of delay.

4. The Consolidation Officer after
hearing the learned counsels for both the
sides on 06.02.2021, fixed 11.02.2021 for
disposal on the point of limitation, against
which the private opposite parties filed
revision in which the Deputy Director of
Consolidation by order dated 10.02.2021
admitted the revision and stayed the further
proceedings
before
the
Consolidation
Officer.

5. Sri Himanshu Kumar Bachhil
submits that the revision against the order
9 All Surya Baksh Singh Vs. D.D.C., Ayodhya & Ors.
1115
dated 10.02.2021, was not maintainable,
the order dated 10.02.2021 being an
interlocutory order, in view of Section 48
(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'the Act,
1953'), and therefore the order dated
10.02.2021 is without jurisdiction.

6. Sri Mohiuddin Khan, submits that
the order dated 10.02.2021 has been passed
with due opportunity of hearing to the
parties which does not call for any
interference.
He
fairly
submits
that
Revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953
does not lie against interlocutory order.

7. In view of the questions involved
upon which legal position is settled and as
the Court is not entering into the factual
dispute, if any, the counter affidavit is not
being called.

8. I have considered the submissions
advanced by the learned counsels for the
parties and perused the material on record.

9. Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, reads
as under:-

"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 of any
order [other than an interlocutory order]
passed by such authority 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 heard, refer the record
of any case or proceedings to the Director
of Consolidation for action under subsection (1).

[Explanation-
[(1)]
For
the
purposes
of
this
section,
Settlement
Officers,
Consolidation,
Consolidation
Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers,
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
proceeding.

[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 re-appreciate any
oral or documentary evidence.]?

10. A bare perusal of Section 48 (1)
of the Act, 1953 shows that the revision is
not competent against the interlocutory
order.
1116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. In Veeresh Singh vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Farrukhabad
and Ors. [2013 (3) ADJ 702], this Court,
after considering the meaning of the word
"interlocutory order" as also in Section
48(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 has held that the
revision against the interlocutory order
under Section 48 of the Act is not
maintainable.

12. It is apt to reproduce paragraph
nos. 7, 8 & 9 of the Veeresh Singh (supra)
as under:-

"7. From the bare reading of the
aforesaid Section it would transpire that the
revision would be maintainable against any
order except the interlocutory order. The
interlocutory order has been explained in
Explanation (2) of the aforesaid Section,
where it is provided that 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 proceeding.

8. The literal meaning of the
word interlocutory order has been defined
in various dictionaries as under:

(1) Law Lexicon (P. Ramanath
Ayer) 1997 Edition: Interlocutory order:
An interlocutory order is one which is
made pending the case and before a final
hearing on the merits.

An interlocutory order is made to
secure some end and purpose necessary
and essential to the progress of the suit,
and generally collateral to the issues
formed by the pleadings and not connected
with the final judgment.

(2) Halsburys Law of England,
4th Edition, Vol. 26, Paragraph 506:

Interlocutory order: An order
which does not deal with the final rights of
the parties, but either - (1) is made before
judgment and gives no final decision on the
matters in dispute, but is merely on a
matter of procedure, or (2) is made after
judgment, and merely directs how the
declarations of right already given in the
final judgment are to be worked out, is
termed Interlocutory. An interlocutory
order, even though not conclusive of the
main dispute, may be conclusive as to the
subordinates matter with which/ideals.

(3)
Concise
Oxford
English
Dictionary, 11th Edition:

Interlocutory: (of a decree or
judgment) given provisionally during the
course of a legal action.

On bare perusal of the meaning
of the word interlocutory order, it would
transpire that an order, which does not
have the effect of finality of the proceedings
and it is an order in a pending proceeding,
which is made during the progress of an
action and which does not finally dispose of
the rights of the parties.

9. The word interlocutory order
has also been used in Section 397 of Code
of Criminal Procedure and the same came
up for consideration before the Apex Court
in the case of Amar Nath and Others Vs.
State of Haryana and Another, , where the
Apex Court has held that the term
interlocutory order merely denotes orders
of a purely interim or temporary nature
which do not decide or touch the important
rights or the liabilities of the parties. In the
case of V.C. Shukla Vs. State through
9 All Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1117
C.B.I., , the Apex Court held that the
interlocutory order has to be construed in
contradiction to or in contrast with final
order, it means not a final order, but an
intermediate order. It is made between the
commencement of an action and the entry
of the judgment. Reverting back to the facts
of this case, as would appear from the
record that here, in this case, nothing has
been decided. The order accepting or
refusing the evidence, impugned in the
revision, in my considered view, would not
fall in the ambit of a final order, as the
matter
is
still
subjudice
before
the
Consolidation Officer, if anything turns on
the statements filed on affidavit, the
petitioner is at liberty to challenge the
same before the higher Court by way of
filing appeal/revision."

13. From perusal of the order dated
06.02.2021 (annexure no. 14), it is evident
that by this order, nothing was decided by the
Consolidation
Officer.
Only
the
date
11.02.2021, was fixed for disposal on the
matter of limitation. The order dated
06.02.2021 does not decide any lis nor
touches on any important right or liability of
any of the parties.

14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court
is of the considered view that the order dated
06.02.2021, being interlocutory, the revision
there-against was not maintainable under
Section 48 (1) of the Act, 1953. The order
dated 10.02.2021 impugned in the petition is
without jurisdiction.

15. Consequently, the order dated
10.02.2021 is quashed. The order dated
06.02.2021 passed by the Consolidation
Officer is revived.

16. The Consolidation Officer,
Ayodhya, shall proceed to decide the
matter pending before him, as per law, after
affording opportunity of hearing to all the
parties concerned, including opposite party
no. 3, with due notice to them, if there is no
other legal impediment.

17. Writ petition is allowed with the
aforesaid observations and directions.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1117
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 19903 of 2021

Anil Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manoj Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law -U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (26 of
1947) - Section 12(C) - Election petition
- Pendency of - early decision or an
expeditious
conclusion
of
election
petitions
is
imperative
for
the
functioning of democracy - However in
the anxiety to conclude the election
proceedings, norms of fair justice and
procedural fairness should not be given
a go by - All parties to the lis should be
duly noticed (Para 7,8)

Petitioner sought direction that his election
petition pending before election tribunal be
decided within a stipulated period of time -
Direction issued to election tribunal to decide
election petition within a period of six months.
(Para 10)

Allowed. (E-5)