1

AFR

Reserved

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 6303 of 2015

Petitioner :- Shabbar Husain

Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation Muzaffarnagar And

Anr.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Pundir,Smt. Rekha Pundir

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Santosh Srivastava,Smt.

Karuna Srivastava

Connected with

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4477 of 2018

Petitioner :- Gulsher And 2 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 18 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Karuna

Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.

Hon'ble M.C.Tripathi,J.

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

(Delivered by Hon.Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.)

This is a reference to the Full Bench made at the instance of a

learned Single Judge, who found contradictory views expressed in

some of the decisions of this Court.

The question for determination is thus stated in the referring

order:

“Whether the territorial jurisdiction to

entertain/decide appeal or revision, against the

order passed on the objection or appeal

transferred outside the district will be at the

transferred district or at the district where the

subject matter of dispute/unit situates?”

The learned Single Judge found that there are two sets of

opinion, which in his view were contradictory. The first set of the

judgments are; Darbari Lal Vs. Deputy Director of

2

Consolidation and others, 1989 RD 304, Ram Das Rai Vs.

Deputy Director of Consolidation and others , 1994 RD

62, and Yadram and others Vs. Deputy Director of

Consolidation, 2013 (120) RD 429 . The other set of

judgments, which were found contradictory by the learned Single

Judge, are; Parshuram Vs. Deputy Director of

Consolidation, Ballia and others, 2006 (100) RD 746, and

Haider Ali Vs. State of U.P. through Consolidation

Commissioner and others, 2012 (115) RD 695.

The question that calls for determination is as to whether a

revision under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of

Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the Act) would lie before the Deputy

Director of Consolidation in whose jurisdiction holding (Unit)

situates or before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in whose

district the appeal was transferred.

Answer to the question is clearly discernible from the plain

language of Section 48 of the Act read with Rule 111 of the Uttar

Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (for short the Rules).

Before we advert to the question, we may briefly set out the

facts in the background. An objection under sub-section (2) of

Section 9 of the Act was filed before the Consolidation Officer,

Saharanpur-II. Both the parties were resident of the same village

i.e. Gram Nanauta, Pargana Rampur, Tehsil Deoband, district

Saharanpur. The Consolidation Officer decided the objection after

furnishing opportunity to both the parties.

Dissatisfied with the order of the Consolidation Officer three

separate appeals, being Appeal No. 501 (Mohd.Isha Vs. Jakira Begum

& others), Appeal No.502 (Shabbar Husain Vs. Jakiya Begum &

others) and Appeal No. 503 (Mohd. Isha Vs. Mohd. Shama & others),

were preferred before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation,

Saharanpur. One of the parties preferred Writ Petition No. 45463 of

2006 for the transfer of appeals to some other district. This Court

3

vide order dated 04.09.2006 transferred the appeals to Settlement

Officer of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar.

On 22.05.2008 the Settlement Officer of Consolidation,

Muzaffarnagar allowed the appeals and quashed the order passed by

the Consolidation Officer, Saharanpur.

Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer of

Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar two separate revisions were filed

before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar. One of

the respondents in the revision, Shabbar Husain, filed an objection

before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar that the

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar does not have

jurisdiction because the holding/unit is situated in district Saharanpur,

therefore, the revision would lie before the Deputy Director of

Consolidation, Saharanpur and not in district Muzaffarnagar. The said

objection of Shabbar Husain was rejected by the Deputy Director of

Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar on 29.09.2014.

The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation,

Muzaffarnagar dated 29.09.2014 was challenged by Shabbar Husain

by filing a writ petition (Writ Petition No.6303 of 2015) before this

Court. The parties relied on the judgments referred above. The

learned Single Judge found that there are conflicting opinions on the

point by this Court, hence, he has referred this matter to the Full

Bench vide order dated 03.07.2015.

We have heard Sri Ramesh Pundir, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General,

Sri Manu Ghildyal, learned Standing Counsel, Sri Santosh Srivastava

and Mrs. Karuna Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

To answer the aforesaid question, it will be necessary to have

the benefit of relevant sets of Act and Rule governing the subject. At

this stage it would be advantageous to reproduce Sections 3(4), 3(4-

A), 4 , 11, 42 and 48 of the Act.

“3(4) 'Director of Consolidation' means the

4

person appointed as such by the State

Government to exercise the powers and perform

the duties of the Director of Consolidation under

this Act or the rules made thereunder and shall

include an Additional Director of Consolidation

and a Joint Director of Consolidation.

3(4-A) 'Deputy Director, Consolidation' means a

person appointed as such by the State

Government to exercise such powers and perform

such duties of the Director of Consolidation as

may be delegated to him by the State Government

and shall include a District Deputy Director of

Consolidation and Assistant Director of

Consolidation.

4. Declaration and notification regarding

consolidation.— (1) (a) The State Government

may, where it is of opinion that a district or part

thereof may be brought under consolidation

operations, make a declaration to that effect in the

Gazette, whereupon it shall become lawful for

any officer or authority who may be empowered

in this behalf by the District Deputy Director of

Consolidation -

(i) to enter upon and survey, in connection with

rectangulation or otherwise, and to take levels of

any land in such area;

(ii) to fix pillars in connection with

rectangulation, and;

(iii) to do all acts necessary to ascertain the

suitability of the area for consolidation

operations.

(b) The District Deputy Director of Consolidation

shall cause public notice of the declaration issued

under clause (a) to be given at convenient places

in the said district or part thereof.

(2)(a) When the State Government decides to

start consolidation operations, either in an area

covered by a declaration issued under sub-section

(1) or in any other area, it may issue a notification

to this effect.

(b) Every such notification shall be published in

the Gazette and in a daily newspaper having

circulation in the said area and shall also be

published in each unit in the said area in such

5

manner as may be considered appropriate.

11. Appeals. - (1) Any party to the proceedings

under Section 9-A, aggrieved by an order of the

Assistant Consolidation Officer or the

Consolidation Officer under that section, may,

within 21 days of the date of the order, file an

appeal before the Settlement Officer,

Consolidation, who shall after affording

opportunity of being heard to the parties

concerned, give his decision thereon which,

except as otherwise provided by or under this Act,

shall be final and not be questioned in any Court

of law.

(2) The Settlement Officer, Consolidation,

hearing an appeal under sub-section (1) shall be

deemed to be a Court of competent jurisdiction,

anything to the contrary contained in any law for

the time being in force notwithstanding.

42. Officers and authorities. - (1) The State

Government may appoint such authorities and

officers, and for such areas, as may be necessary,

to give effect to the provisions of this Act.

(2) The District Deputy Director of Consolidation

may, subject to such directions as the Director of

Consolidation may issue from time to time,

demarcate the circles to be assigned to

Consolidation Lekhpals, Consolidators and other

authorities appointed for the district under sub-

section (1).

48. 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

6

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 sub-

section (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.

In exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 54

of the Act, the State Government has framed the Rules i.e. the Uttar

Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. Rule 65 of the Rules

deals with the transfer of cases. Rule 111 of the Rules provides the

procedure to file an application under Section 48 of the Act. Rules 65

and 111 reads as under:

“65. Section 54. - (1) The Settlement Officer,

Consolidation, may withdraw any case from the

file of any Consolidation Officer or Assistant

Consolidation Officer subordinate to him and

may refer the same for disposal to any other

Consolidation Officer or Assistant Consolidation

Officer competent to deal therewith.

(1A) The Officer before whom appeals, revisions

or references under the provisions of the Act or

these rules are instituted may transfer any case

instituted or pending before him to any other

officer empowered to hear and decide such case,

or recall case pending before any other officer

7

from the file of that officer to his own file. The

District Deputy Director of Consolidation of a

district where Joint/Deputy/Assistant Director of

Consolidation is posted may call for record of

any revision or case pending before such officer

for disposal and may transfer it to such officer if

he is unable to decide it for some reason.

(2)The Director of Consolidation may

withdraw any case from the file of any

Settlement Officer, Consolidation, and refer the

same to any other Settlement Officer

Consolidation for disposal.”

“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.”

As can be seen from the bare reading of the statutory

provisions referred above, the Director of Consolidation may call for

and examine the record of any case or proceeding taken by any

subordinate authority. The word 'subordinate' in the section assumes

significance. It clearly denotes that the revisional court can correct

the order of its subordinate authority. Therefore, the Deputy Director

of Consolidation of the district, where the case was transferred can

correct the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who is his

subordinate authority. In case revision is filed in the district where

the holding (unit) situates, the revisional authority, in our opinion, has

no jurisdiction to correct the judgment of the appellate authority of

8

another district, who is not his subordinate authority.

It is pertinent to mention that the State Government is

empowered to delegate its power to any officer or authority. It can

also confer power of the Director of Consolidation on any officer or

authority. The State Government exercising its power under the said

section has delegated the power of the Director of Consolidation upon

the Deputy Director of Consolidation of each district. Therefore, the

Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot exercise his power beyond

his delegated authority. It is only the Director of Consolidation, who

has power to call for the record of any subordinate authority. Sub-

section (4) of Section 3 of the Act defines the Director of

Consolidation and sub-section (4-A) of Section 3 of the Act

separately defines the Deputy Director, Consolidation. Though the

Act does not spell out the power and duties of various authorities but

a careful reading of the Rules shows that the power of each authority

under the Act has been enumerated in the Rules. The scheme of the

Act has been designed to redress of all the grievances of the tenure

holder in respect of scheme of consolidation in a unit. Rule 111 of the

Rules amplifies the said power by specifically providing that an

application under Section 48 of the Act shall be presented to

Joint/Deputy/Assistant Director of Consolidation nominated by the

Director of Consolidation. Thus, it is clear that a Deputy Director of

Consolidation has power only to correct the order of his subordinate

authority, i.e., the Settlement Officer, Consolidation or the

Consolidation Officer.

Regard may be had to the fact that before the learned Single

Judge it was submitted that Rule 111 of the Rules provides that an

application under Section 48 of the Act shall be presented to the

Joint/Deputy/Assistant Director of Consolidation, nominated by the

Director for the District or Settlement Officer (Consolidation) where

the unit concerned situates. It was urged that the unit has been

defined under Section 3(11A) of the Act, which reads as under:

9

(11A) 'Unit' means a village or part thereof, and

where the Director of Consolidation so notifies

by publication in the Official Gazette, two or

more villages or parts thereof, for which a single

scheme of consolidation is to be framed.”

On the basis of said definition it was sought to be urged that the

words 'District' and 'Unit' mentioned in the Rule clearly indicate that

only in the district where subject matter of dispute (Unit) situates,

revision has to be filed. The said submission was raised on the

premise of the law laid down in the case of Haider Ali (supra) and

Parshuram (supra).

Now we shall consider the cases which have been found to be

conflicting.

In Haider Ali (supra) the learned Single Judge in his short

judgment has relied on the law laid down in the case of Parshuram

(supra).

In Parshuram (supra), the same issue fell for consideration

that whether revision would lie before the Deputy Director,

Consolidation, where the unit situates, or before the Deputy Director

of Consolidation of a district where the matter was transferred. The

Court went elaborately into all implications of statutory provisions

and it followed the law laid down in the case of Darbari Lal

(supra).

We find that the case of Darbari Lal (supra) is the root

authority on the issue. In all subsequent decisions said case has been

followed.

In Darbari Lal (supra) the holding was in village Kodari

Nadhogarh, district Jalaun. An objection was filed under Section 9

(2) of the Act. The Consolidation Officer decided the objection. The

aggrieved party preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of

Consolidation, Jalaun at Orai. One of the parties moved an

application for transfer of the appeal. The appeal was transferred to

the court of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Kanpur. The appeal

10

was dismissed. Against the order of the Settlement Officer of

Consolidation a revision was filed under Section 48 of the Act in the

court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun at Orai. The

opposite party filed an objection that the Deputy Director of

Consolidation, Jalaun at Orai has no jurisdiction since the appeal was

decided by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Kanpur, hence,

the revision would lie before the Deputy Director of Consolidation,

Kanpur. The objection filed by the opposite party was rejected by the

revisional court vide its order dated 20.01.1987. The said order was

challenged in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

This Court after considering sub-section (4-A) of Section 3, Sections

4 and 48 of the Act came to hold that the Deputy Director of

Consolidation, Jalaun had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision

against the order of the appellate authority/Settlement Officer

Consolidation, Kanpur. The following passage of the judgment is in

this regard apposite:

“Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings

Act, 1953 defines 'Director of Consolidation'

which means the person appointed as such by the

State Government to exercise the powers and

perform the duties of the Director of

Consolidation under this Act or the rules made

thereunder and shall include an Additional

Director of Consolidation and a Joint Director of

Consolidation. Section 3(4-A) defines, 'Deputy

Director of Consolidation' which means a person

appointed as such by the State Government to

exercise such powers and perform such duties of

the Director of Consolidation as may be delegated

to him by the State Government and shall include

a District Deputy Director of Consolidation and

Assistant Director of Consolidation.

In view of the above definitions and Rule 111, I

think that the contentions raised on behalf of the

petitioner 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 petition against the order of the appellate

authority of Kanpur should have been preferred in

11

the district of Kanpur. The reason of the

revisional court for entertaining the revision

petition on the ground that only appeal had 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 authority, therefore, it was incumbent

upon the revisional court to have addressed itself

to the question whether the appellate authority

was subordinate to the revisional court in the

facts and circumstances of the present case. To

my mind, the appellate authority was of District

Kanpur, therefore the revisional court of Jalaun

cannot have jurisdiction to look into the illegality,

irregularity or impropriety committed by the

appellate authority of Kanpur. The impugned

order of the revisional court dated January 20,

1987 appears to me suffering from potent error of

law in view of the above quoted provisions of the

Consolidation Act and Rules.”

The judgment of Darbari Lal (supra) was followed in the

case of Parshuram (supra). In the said case the dispute relates to

Khata No. 245 situate in village Sikandarpujr, District Ballia. The

Consolidation Officer allowed the objection filed by one of the parties

under Section 9-A(2) of the Act. Dissatisfied with the order of the

Consolidation Officer an appeal was preferred before the Settlement

Officer Consolidation, Ballia. Later, on an application filed by one of

the parties the appeal was transferred to the Settlement Officer

Consolidation, District Mau and it was decided on 01.02.2006. The

aggrieved party preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of

Consolidation, Ballia against the order passed by the Settlement

Officer Consolidation, Mau.

An objection was raised regarding maintainability of the

revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia. The

said objection was rejected on 10.03.2006. The order was challenged

by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This

Court followed the decision of Darbari Lal (supra) and came to

hold that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mau will have the

12

jurisdiction and not the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia

where the unit and holding situates.

In the case of Haider Ali (supra) the holding situates in

district Gorakhpur. An appeal was filed against the order of the

Consolidation Officer before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation,

Gorakhpur but the same was transferred to district Maharajganj.

Against the order of the appellate authority a revision was filed before

the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Maharajganj. One of the

parties Haider Ali preferred a writ petition seeking a writ of

mandamus to transfer the said revision to the Deputy Director of

Consolidation, Gorakhpur where the holding situates. The learned

Single Judge in his short judgment has held that the law is settled that

the revision lies before the Deputy Director of Consolidation where

the appeal has been originally filed and not before the Deputy

Director of Consolidation of the transferree district. The judgment

reads as under:

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.An appeal under Section 11 of the U.P.

Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was

pending in relation to the holding in dispute in

the District of Gorakhpur. The holding is also

situate within the District of Gorakhpur. The

appeal was transferred for decision to the

appellate authority in another District, namely,

District of Maharajganj. The appeal has been

decided and has gone adverse to the petitioner.

The petitioner has now filed a revision before the

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Maharajganj.

The prayer made in this petition is that a

mandamus be issued to transfer the said revision

to the Deputy Director of Consolidation

Gorakhpur.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the

petitioner and having perused the judgment of

this court in the case of Parshuram Vs. Deputy

Director of Consolidation, Ballia & others,

reported in 2006 RD 746, the law is now settled

that a revision would lie before the Deputy

Director of Consolidation of the district where

the appeal had been originally filed and not

before the Deputy Director of Consolidation of

13

the transferee district.

4.Accordingly, the petitioner ought to have

filed his revision before the Deputy Director of

Consolidation, Gorakhpur which has not been

done and the revision has been wrongly preferred

before the Deputy Director of Consolidation,

Maharajganj. In such a situation, the writ petition

is consigned to records with liberty to the

petitioner to approach the Deputy Director of

Consolidation,Gorakhpur.

Ordered accordingly.”

It is worthwhile to mention that though the learned Single

Judge has relied upon the judgment in the case of Parshuram

(supra) but the finding has been recorded contrary to the law laid

down in the said case of Parshuram (supra).

Later, this contradiction was pointed out before the learned

Single Judge by way of review/recall application. The learned Single

Judge on the said application has passed the following order:

“Heard learned counsel for the applicant Sri

Ashish Kumar Srivastava.

.

This application has been filed after serving a

copy of the same on Sri Amit Kumar Singh

learned counsel for the petitioner. The matter has

been taken up in the revised call. None appears

on behalf of the petitioner.

This application has been filed for recall of the

judgment dated 30.11.2011 on the ground that the

direction issued appears to be contrary to the law

laid down in the case of Parashuram Vs. Deputy

Director of Consolidation, Ballia and others,

2006 RD Pg. 746, particularly paragraph 8

thereof. Prima facie, it appears to be correct.”

From the order passed on the recall application it is evident that

the learned Single Judge was prima facie satisfied that the earlier

order is contrary to the law laid down in the Parshuram (supra),

on which he has placed reliance.

14

This contradiction in the case of Haider Ali (supra) has also

been noticed in the case of Yadram (supra) in the following terms:

“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, has

held that revision would lie before the DDC of

the district where the appeal had been originally

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).”

In the said case also the learned Single Judge has followed the

judgment of Darbari Lal (supra) and Parshuram (supra). The

relevant part of the judgment reads as under:

“11. Following the jdugment 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.”

In the case of Ram Das Rai (supra) the fact was that the

Consolidation Commissioner on 28.01.1993 transferred the appeal

from the court of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Deoria to the

Court of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gorakhpur. The said

appeals were assigned to one Ram Chandra Yadav, the Settlement

Officer, Consolidation, Gorakhpur, who was directed to hold a camp

at Deoria from 15.02.1993 to 22.02.1993 and decide the aforesaid

appeals. In compliance thereof Sri Ram Chandra Yadav, Settlement

15

Officer, Consolidation, Gorakhpur held his camp at Deoria and

decided the appeals by an order dated 22.02.1993 at Deoria. Against

the order of the appellate authority 13 revisions were filed before the

District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria. A preliminary

objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the revision

before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria amongst other

grounds that since the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Gorakhpur

has decided the appeal, hence the Deputy Director of Consolidation,

Gorakhpur has the jurisdiction to decide the revision and not the

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria. The said objection was

rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria vide order

dated 17.09.1993, which was challenged by Ramdas Rai (supra).

This Court referring the judgment of Darbari Lal (supra) held that

Section 48 of the Act has used the words 'subordinate court' which

means a judicial subordination. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation

is subordinate to the Director of Consolidation, which term includes

the Deputy Director of Consolidation, hence the Deputy Director of

Consolidation while exercising the power of Director of

Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act is competent to entertain

and decide the revision. The relevant part of the judgment reads as

under:

“5. It is evident that under Section 42(1) of the

Act the State Government is empowered to

appoint authorities/Officers with a view to giving

effect to the provisions of the Act for such area as

may be necessary. The powers vested in the

District Deputy Director of Consolidation to

demarcate the circle to be assigned to the

consolidation authorities appointed for the district

under Sub-Section (2) of Section 42 of the Act is

subject to such direction as the Director of

Consolidation may issue from time to time.

Section 44 of the Act empowers the State

Government to confer powers of a Settlement

Officer Consolidation to any officer or authority.

It is not disputed that Sri Ram Chandra Yadav, the

Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Gorakhpur had

been conferred with the power of Settlement

Officer Consolidation, for the purposes of the

16

Act. In my opinion the direction given by the

Consolidation Commissioner vide order dated

28.1.1993 to Sri Ran Chandra Yadav, the

Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Gorakhpur to

decide the appeals specified in the order by

holding a camp at Deoria, is a direction within

the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 42 of

the Act. Sri Ram Chandra Yadav though

appointed as Settlement Officer Consolidation,

Gorakhpur would be deemed to be the Settlement

Officer Consolidation, Deoria for the purposes of

the appeals specified in the Consolidation

Commissioner's order dated 28.1.1993. The

argument of the learned counsel that Sri Ram

Chandra Yadav, the Settlement Officer,

Consolidation having been conferred powers of

Settlement Officer Consolidation for the purposes

of the Act only in so far as the Gorakhpur district

is concerned has therefore no merits. The

Revision against his order could be preferred

before the District Deputy Director of

Consolidation, Deoria. Section 48(1) of the Act

read with Rule 111 of the Rules made under the

Act, no doubt comprehends that an application

(revision) under Section 48 of the Act would be

presented to the District Deputy Director of

Consolidation against the order passed by an

authority subordinate to the District Deputy

Director of Consolidation. But a perusal of Sub-

Section (4) and (4-A) of Section 3 and Section 48

(1) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the

District Deputy Director of or Deputy Director of

Consolidation discharge the function of the

Director of Consolidation as delegated by virtue

of Section 44(ii) of the Act. That apart the power

under Section 48 of the Act being in the nature of

judicial power, the term 'subordinate authority'

occurring in the Section means judicial

subordination. Explanation (1) to the Section

makes it crystal clear that Settlement Officer

Consolidation is subordinate to the Director of

Consolidation (which term includes District

Deputy Director of Consolidation) for the

purposes of the Section. In my opinion,

therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation,

Deoria while exercising the power of Director of

Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act is

competent to entertain and decide the revisions

preferred against the order passed by the

Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gorakhpur

17

Camp at Deoria. The Consolidation

Commissioner while transferring the appeals to

the court of Sri Ram Chandra Yadav, the

Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Gorakhpur had

put a rider that the said Settlement Officer

Consolidation would hold his court and decide

the appeals at Deoria and not at Gorakhpur.

Accordingly the revisions preferred before the

District Deputy Director/Deputy Director of

Consolidation at Deoria against the appellate

orders passed by the Settlement Officer

Consolidation, Gorakhpur, Camp at Deoria were

quite competent.”

The conspection of the legal position that emerges from the

aforesaid decisions are these:

(1)The State Government has power to appoint authorities and

officers for the respective areas, as may be necessary, to give effect to

the provisions of the Act. In district the District Deputy Director of

Consolidation is vested with the powers to demarcate the circles in

his district and assign the duties and functions to the concerned

officers in terms of the provision of the Act, the Rules and the

directions issued from time to time by the Director of Consolidation.

(2)The State Government may delegate its power to any officer or

authority. It may also confer powers of other authorities and officers

on any officer or authority.

(3)The power under Section 48 of the Act is akin to judicial

power, hence, in view of Explanation (1) of Section 48 of the Act, the

Settlement Officers, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation

Officers, Consolidators and Consolidation Lekhpals are subordinates

to the Director of Consolidation. Since power of the Director of

Consolidation has been delegated to the Deputy Director of

Consolidation to exercise his powers under Section 48 of the Act,

they become subordinate officer to the Deputy Director of

Consolidation.

(4)In view of the above, an application (revision) would lie before

a Deputy Director of Consolidation against an order passed by his

18

subordinate authorities.

After careful consideration of the submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties and the judgments mentioned by the learned

Single Judge in the referring order, we find that there is no

contradiction in the judgments discussed above where the same law

has been laid down. We are in respectful agreement with the law laid

down in Darbari Lal (supra), which has been followed in the

subsequent judgments.

Accordingly, we answer the reference in the following terms:

If an appeal or objection is transferred outside of the district, an

application (revision) under section 48 of the Act would lie before the

Deputy Director of Consolidation of the same District, where the

matter was transferred and not in the District where holding or unit

situates.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Let the matter be placed before the appropriate Bench.

Order Date :-2.4.2019

MAA/-