JUDGMENT Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 30.4.1986 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Allahabad.
2. The brief facts, for the purposes of determination of the present petition, as stated in the petition are that in proceeding under Section 20 of the Consolidation of Holding Act, the claim of the petitioner was accepted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 18.3,1972. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, the contesting respondent filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation without impleading the petitioner as party to the aforesaid revision. On 9.4.1973 revision was allowed. The petitioner when came to know about this ex parte judgment, he filed restoration application for setting aside the order dated 9.4.1973. The Deputy Director of Consolidation on 31.12.1974 allowed the restoration application and set aside the order dated 9.4.1973. It is stated that when the revision was restored to its original number, the contesting respondents who were revisionists before the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not press the revision and on 20.1.1975, it was dismissed as not pressed. It is further stated that when the revision was dismissed as not pressed, the amaldaramad of the orders dated 31.12.1974 and 20.1.1975 was made in C.H. Forms 23, 43 and 45. It is staled that the petitioner came in possession in pursuance of the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and necessary amaldaramad was made. The allegations of the petitioner are that the contesting respondent filed an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation challenging the amaldaramad made in favour of the petitioner. An objection was filed to the aforesaid application. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the application of the contesting respondent on 30.4.1986. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is based on suspicion. No enquiry was made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation from the staff as well as from other source regarding the allegations contained in the application filed by the respondents. He has further submitted that C.H. Form 23. Part 1 was filed along with necessary question answer to prove that on 20.1.1975 the revision was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as not pressed by the contesting respondents who were revisionists in that revision, therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the orders dated 31.12.1974 and 20.1.1975 appears to be suspicious, is misconceived and unwarranted. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amaldaramad in missils band register and C.H. Form 23. Part 1 has been misinterpreted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to the effect that it is in different ink and in different hand writing and the suspicion drawn by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is incorrect and against the record. The Deputy Director of Consolidation should have made thorough enquiry regarding the alleged forgery and mere suspicion cannot be the basis for allowing the application filed by the respondent and for quashing the amaldaramad. His further submission is that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is self contradictory order. It is pointed out that at one place the Deputy Director of Consolidation has stated that the order dated 31.12.1974 is correct order, then he has no authority to say that amaldaramad should be made in accordance with the order dated 9.4.1973.
4. Counter-affidavit has been filed in this case. In the counter-affidavit the contesting respondent has submitted that actually the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 9.4.1973 was a final order. It is stated that there was neither any restoration nor any order was passed on 20.1.1975. The orders dated 20.1.1975 and 31.12.1974 are forged and the petitioner has taken benefit of burning of the record in the record room. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that when the revision was allowed on 9.4.1973 there is no reason that the revisionist will get it dismissed as not pressed when it was restored to its original number. The contesting respondent has filed C. H. Form 23 which was issued on 17.12.1977 as Annexure CA-1 to the counter-affidavit to prove that the amendment has been made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 9.4.1973 and further to prove that amaldaramad of any subsequent order either on the restoration matter or the order dismissing the revision as not pressed was not there. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation after getting the report from the subordinate authority and after hearing both the parties has given his final order in the matter and found as a fact that the alleged amaldaramad dated 8.10.1977 is forged and farzi. This question is a question of fact and the petitioner cannot make any grievance before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Along with the counter-affidavit the contesting respondent has filed a copy of the report dated 10.12.1981 given by the Consolidation Officer and the reference dated 22.10.1984 made by the Settlement Officer Consolidation to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed controverting the allegations contained in the counter-affidavit.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.K. Singh has urged that from the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it is apparent on the face of the record that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has given a finding that from the register which has been summoned from the revenue record room, it appears that below 9.4.1973. 20.1.1975 has been written whereas the order is said to have been passed on 2.1.1975. He has also made observation that the order was passed on 31.12.1974 dismissing the revision as not pressed and amaldaramad of the order dated 2.1.1975 was made on 8.10.1977 which is in different hand writing and does not tally with the amaldaramad made in C.H. Form 23. Para 1. His submission is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have made enquiry if he was of any doubt regarding the procedure in making the amaldaramad. His submission is that if the Deputy Director of Consolidation merely asked his subordinate authority to submit a report and the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation have submitted their reports that reports cannot be said to be an enquiry regarding the forgery. At the best it can only be said to be report on the spot.
7. Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has urged that as the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the application filed by the contesting respondent got an enquiry made through its subordinate authorities and on the basis of the report submitted by the subordinate authorities and after seeing the register summoned from the revenue record room he was of the view that forgery has been committed then this order does not suffer from any error of law and no interference is required by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has placed reliance on a decision in Mujeeb v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and others, 1996 RD 66. In this case, reliance was placed in a case Junior Doctors Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani, AIR 1991 SC 909, wherein it was held that whether an entry be corrected without affording opportunity of hearing to person likely to be affected depends on facts of each case. So far entry made on the basis of a forged order or non existing order is concerned, such an entry cannot be allowed to continue as soon as the fact comes to light and any person who has got an amaldaramad on the basis of the forged or non existing order cannot be allowed to raise a grievance. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent has urged that in this case the Court observed that if an order is forged one then opportunity of hearing to the petitioner' is necessary before passing the order. Principle of natural justice cannot be exercised in such case. His submission is that when finding of fact has been recorded, it cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court.
8. Sri S.K. Singh in reply to the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent Sri Radhey Shyam has submitted that from a perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation It is apparent that no thorough enquiry was made and the amaldaramad has already been cancelled on the basis of suspicion therefore, no proper enquiry was made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, it is admitted case of the parties that an order was passed on 9.4.1973 and revision was allowed. The controversy is only with regard to the subsequent orders regarding restoration application and then regarding the dismissal of the revision as not pressed. Therefore, the dispute is as to whether there was any restoration application filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 9.4.1973 and as to whether the case was restored to its original number and whether the revision was got dismissed by the contesting respondent. From the argument of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that miscellaneous application was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation alleging all frauds and forgeries subsequent to the order dated 9.4.1973 and on the perusal of annexures filed by the contesting respondent with the counter-affidavit which are the copies of the report of the Consolidation Officer and that of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, it is apparent that they submitted the reports and gave certain opinion in their report regarding the disputed entries and amaldaramad, etc. but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not referred this report and has passed order after seeing the original C.H. Form 23, Part 1 and after summoning certain register from the revenue record room. It appears that he has not referred those reports in his judgment rather has based his judgment on his personal observation after seeing the pleas in the registered summoned from the revenue record room and has acted as hand writing expert.
10. Under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is confined to a narrow compass. Section 48 of the aforesaid Act is quoted below :
"48. Revision and reference.--(1) The Deputy 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 interlocutory order) passed by such authority in the case of proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case of 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 sub-section (1)."
11. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid section, it is clear that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may on the application filed by some person or suo moto exercise the power and pass orders in conformity with Section 48 of the aforesaid Act. Section 48 of the aforesaid Act has been subject-matter of interpretation in Abdul Junaid v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1972 ALJ 435. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below :
"Section 48 does not confer any right on a party to file an application in revision. It confers a power on the specified authority for the sake of keeping the inferior authorities within bounds. For that purpose he may call for the record of an inferior authority and examine it and pass an appropriate order. Having regard to the object underlying Section 48 it appears to us that once the record has been called for by the specified authority, he should not ordinarily refuse to examine the record and to check whether the inferior authority has gone wrong. So long as the record has not been called for, a person who makes an application under Section 48 may be said to an actor on the scene. But when the record has been called for it appears to us that he ceased to be an actor on the scene. The specified authority who has called for the record becomes the actor on the scene. Accordingly he should examine the record and pass such an order which will advance justice."
12. This decision was considered by the Full Bench of this Court in a case Kama Kant Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U. P. and others. AIR 1975 All 126. The Full Bench was of the opinion that after the record has been called for by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48, he should examine the record to decide whether it was a fit case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction suo moto. Such opinion shall have to be formed even where the application in revision moved by a party is defective having been made beyond the prescribed period of limitation or all the necessary parties have not been impleaded. If the Deputy Director of Consolidation finds that the case requires further hearing, he shall give notice to all the necessary parties irrespective of whether they were or were not impleaded in the application and after giving them reasonable opportunity of hearing, pass such order as he thinks fit. Where the application in revision is not defective and is maintainable, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall be at the instance of the parties and not suo moto.
13. From the aforesaid two judgments, it is apparent that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has no jurisdiction to pass order in summary manner rather when he has summoned the record, then he has to make enquiry or scrutiny of the proceedings and orders passed by the subordinate authority and if some fraud or forgery has been alleged. It is the duty of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to make enquiry about the fraud and forgery. It is true that this Court has held in 1996 RD 66 (supra), that the person who is placing reliance on the forged document cannot be allowed to raise grievance. But nevertheless in the same judgment keeping in view the principle of natural justice, the Court has held that this principle may differ from case to case and in such matters, possibility cannot be ruled out that the person affected be possessed of sufficient materials by which he may be able to show that the order giving rise to entry in dispute is not a forged one. The Court has further held that this requires safeguarding of interest of person adversely affected by correction of entry in revenue papers and further that this interest of affected person can be safeguarded by providing him a post-order opportunity of hearing which will also exclude possibility of error which may arise due to want of opportunity of hearing and a possible error will also stand rectified in maintenance of correct revenue entries. From the reading of this judgment, it is apparent that factual aspect of the case is to be considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation before giving a finding that the entry is forged one. From the judgment, it is apparent that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not made any mention of any enquiry in his order. From the counter-affidavit, it is apparent that there were two reports. Therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have got further evidence regarding the forgery. It was incumbent on the part of the Consolidation Officer (D.D.C.) to have made enquiry regarding the alleged forgery. He should not have passed the order merely on suspicion of the forgery. He should have given opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence with regard to their respective contentions. He should have himself made enquiry from the subordinate authority like Lekhpal, etc. who were responsible for making amaldaramad in the record which was summoned from the revenue record room or any other officer who was responsible for making entry in the aforesaid register. In the instant case, no such enquiry has been made. Therefore. I am of the view that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not exercised jurisdiction properly vested in him under Section 48 of the aforesaid Act, as such, the order passed by him cannot be permitted to continue and it is hereby quashed. But as forgery has been committed which is a serious matter and if any such fraud is found after making enquiry, it should not be permitted to continue. Therefore, the matter is being sent back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to investigate and make enquiry regarding the truth of the matter and as to whether any fraud as alleged by the respondents has been committed and if it has been committed, then by whom. It is expected that the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall take action in accordance with law against the person who is responsible for such fraud, if any.
14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby set aside and the matter is sent back to him to decide afresh as per observation made in the body of the judgment and in accordance with the provisions of Section 48 of the aforesaid Act. There shall be no orders as to cost.