# Yadram and others v. D.D.C. And Others

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 133
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-01-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65543 of 2012
- **Bench:** Ran Vijai Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yadram-and-others-v-d-d-c-and-others-42463
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of holding Act Section
48-Jurisdiction to entertained revisionagainst the order passed by S.O.C.
Meerut-although
appeal
filed
before
S.O.C.
Gautam
Buddh
Nagarsubsequently transfer to S.O.C. Meerutwhether the D.D.C. Gautam Buddh Nagar
or D.D.C. Gautam Buddh Nagar camp
Bulandshahr has jurisdiction ?-held-the
revision would be maintainable before
the D.D.C. of District where appeal was
initially filed.

Held: Para-11

Following the judgment in Darbari Lal
(supra) another learned single Judge of
this Court has also taken the same view
in
Prashuram
(supra).
In
Prashuram(supra)
all
other
contrary
decisions have been considered and
distinguished and to my knowledge this
judgment still holds the field. So far as
judgment
in
Haider
Ali
(Supra)
is
concerned, as has been noticed the
learned single Judge himself has stayed
the further proceedings pursuant to the
judgment rendered in that case.

## Text

1 All] Yadram and others V. D.D.C. and others
133
Munna Lal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
& Ors., 2005 (6) AWC 5958; and
Committee of Management, Sri Yadvesh
Inter College & Anr.State of U.P. & Ors.,
2011 (8) ADJ 493. Therefore, the order of
the Deputy Director of Consolidation
remanding the matter is unsustainable and
the writ petition is dismissed.

17. However, the liberty is given to
the petitioners to challenge the order dated
26.12.2009 before the appropriate Court. In
case any such case is instituted/filed along
with a certified copy of the order of this
Court, the same shall be decided by the
Court/Authority concerned, in accordance
with law, on its own merit.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.01.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65543 of 2012

Yadram and others
 ...Petitioners
Versus
D.D.C. And Others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of holding Act Section
48-Jurisdiction to entertained revisionagainst the order passed by S.O.C.
Meerut-although
appeal
filed
before
S.O.C.
Gautam
Buddh
Nagarsubsequently transfer to S.O.C. Meerutwhether the D.D.C. Gautam Buddh Nagar
or D.D.C. Gautam Buddh Nagar camp
Bulandshahr has jurisdiction ?-held-the
revision would be maintainable before
the D.D.C. of District where appeal was
initially filed.

Held: Para-11

Following the judgment in Darbari Lal
(supra) another learned single Judge of
this Court has also taken the same view
in
Prashuram
(supra).
In
Prashuram(supra)
all
other
contrary
decisions have been considered and
distinguished and to my knowledge this
judgment still holds the field. So far as
judgment
in
Haider
Ali
(Supra)
is
concerned, as has been noticed the
learned single Judge himself has stayed
the further proceedings pursuant to the
judgment rendered in that case.

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

1. Through this writ petition, the
petitioners have prayed for issuing writ of
certiorari
quashing
the
order
dated
27.06.2012, passed by the Deputy Director
of
Consolidation,
Bulandshahr,
Camp
Gautam Buddh Nagar (In short DDC), by
which the revision filed by the petitioners
has been dismissed on the ground that the
DDC, Bulandshahr, Camp Gautam Buddh
Nagar has no jurisdiction to entertain the
revision with the further direction to the
revisionists to avail the remedy before the
appropriate court.

2. The facts giving rise to this case are
that, it appears, against the judgment and
order
dated
05.03.2011,
passed
by
Consolidation Officer, Gautam Buddh
Nagar in Case No. 45/63, an appeal was
filed
before
the
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation, Gautam Buddh Nagar (in
short SOC), which was numbered as
Appeal No. 81 of 2006. The said appeal was
transferred, on the Transfer Application No.
77 of 2011, filed under Rule 65-A (2) of the
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings
Rules, 1954 before SOC, Meerut, by the
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
order of the Joint Director of Consolidation
on 28.04.2011.

3. After transfer of the appeal, the
decision rendered in the appeal by the SOC,
Meerut on 04.07.2011 was Challenged
through revision filed by the petitioners/
revisionists before the DDC, Gautam Budh
Nagar. The DDC, Gautam Buddh Nagar
dismissed the revision on the ground that
the revision would be maintainable before
the DDC of the district of which district's
SOC has decided the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has vehemently contended that the view
taken by the DDC is illegal. In his
submissions, the revision would lie before
the DDC of the district in whose jurisdiction
land in dispute is situated and not before the
DDC of the district of which SOC has
decided the appeal. In his submissions, the
transfer order was passed in certain
circumstances, and the transfer of the matter
to another district will not confer the
jurisdiction of the revisional court also at
the place where the appeal was transferred.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has placed reliance upon the judgments of
this Court in the case of Ramdas Rai Vs.
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria
and others, 1994 RD 62; and Haider Ali
Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (115)
RD 695.

6. In the case of Ramdas Rai (Supra),
it appears, an appeal was instituted at
Gorakhpur
and
the
Consolidation
Commissioner, U.P. directed the SOC,
Gorakhpur to hold a camp at Deoria and
decide the appeal. The appeal was decided
at Deoria by the SOC, Gorakhpur on the
direction
of
the
Consolidation
Commissioner. The revisions were filed
before the DDC, Deoria.

7. The other side has taken objection
that the DDC, Deoria will have no
jurisdiction to entertain the revision, as the
order in appeal had been passed by the
SOC, Gorakhpur, holding a camp at Deoria
and not by SOC, Deoria.

8. The objection taken by the other
side was sustained and it has been held by
this Court that the DDC, Deoria will have
no jurisdiction to entertain the revision
against the appellate order passed by the
DDC,
Gorakhpur,
camp
at
Deoria.
Therefore, the decision cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioners is of no help.

9. So far as the decision rendered in
Haider Ali (supra) is concerned, learned
single Judge of this Court taking note of the
decision
in
Prashuram
vs.
Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Ballia [2006
(100) RD 746] has held that revision would
lie before the DDC of the district where the
appeal had been orignally filed and not
before the DDC of the transferee district. It
may be noticed that later on the learned
single Judge has reviewed his judgment and
stayed all further proceedings pursuant to
the judgment of this Court dated 30.11.2011
taking note of paragraph 8 of the judgment
in Prashuram (supra).

10. In the case of Darbari Lal vs.
D.D.C. Jalaun [1989 RD 304] another
learned single Judge of this Court has held
that the revision would lie before the DDC
of the district of which district 's SOC has
decided the appeal. For appreciation
relevant
paragraph
of
the
aforesaid
judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
1 All] U.P. Rajya Karmchari Kalyan Nigam V. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others
135

"In view of the above definition and
Rule 111, I think that the contentions raised
on behalf of the petitiner have force. The
said Rule of the Act emphasises the officers
of the Director as competent authorities to
entertain the revision petition. Therefore, in
the facts and circumstances of the present
case, I think that the revision petitioner
against the order of the appellate authority
of the Kanpur should have been preferred in
the district of Kanpur. The reason of the
revisional court for entertaining the revision
petition on the ground that only appeal has
been transferred to Kanpur for decision and
no other proceedings for ever does not
appear to me as correct. It is well known
that the order of the original officer merges
in the order of the appellate authoirty,
therefore, it was incumbent upon the
revisional court to have addressed itself to
the
question
wherther
the
appellate
authority was usbordinate to the revisional
court in the facts and circumstances of the
present. To my mind the appellate authority
was of District Kanpur, therefore the
revisional court of Jalaun cannot have
jurisdictiodn to look into the illegality,
irregularity or impropriety committed by the
appellate authority of Kanpur....."
(emphasis supplied)

11. Following the judgment in
Darbari Lal (supra) another learned single
Judge of this Court has also taken the same
view
in
Prashuram
(supra).
In
Prashuram(supra)
all
other
contrary
decisions
have
been
considered
and
distinguished and to my knowledge this
judgment still holds the field. So far as
judgment in Haider Ali (Supra) is
concerned, as has been noticed the learned
single Judge himself has stayed the further
proceedings pursuant to the judgment
rendered in that case.

12. In view of the foregoing
discussions and law laid down by this court
in the aforesaid cases, no infirmity can be
attached with the order impugned, passed
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Bulandshahr, Camp Gautam Budh Nagar.

13. The writ petition lacks merit and is
hereby dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.01.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68144 of 2012

U.P. Rajya Karmchari Kalyan Nigam

 ...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge, Kanpur Nagar And Others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nripendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
............................

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996,
Section 34 readwith Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises Development Act,
2006,
Section
19-award
made
by
industry
facilitation
council-appeal
without deposit 75 % of award-heldappeal can not be entertained-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para-9 and 10

A
conjoint
reading
of
the
above
provisions makes it clear that an appeal
or an application for setting aside the
award made by the Industry Facilitation
Council can only be entertained if the
applicant deposits 75% of the amount
awarded. This condition of deposit is in
addition to the conditions or procedure