JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. This case furnishes a speaking instance of how the paradox of "Litigant Interest is Supreme" coined in the mid seventies by the Judiciary is being observed is consolidation courts having all the trappings of a court of law resulting in compelling a hapless litigant to knock every door in the hierarchy seeking redressal of his grievance but to no avail. Having endured all the odds and travails for three years, the petitioner has finally landed in this Court by means of the present petition.
2. A brief resume of necessary facts is that the petitioner was allotted chaks in his original holdings at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer including Chak comprising in plot No. 774. In plot No. 774 which comprises in his original holding, it is alleged, is installed tube-well of the petitioner- the only source of irrigation to his crops. The opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 who were also allotted chaks at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Baghpat/Meerut, in which their main plank was that they be allotted single chak instead of two chaks in their original holdings. It is alleged that the petitioner also preferred an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation seeking transfer of appeal from the end of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Since, in the meantime, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation stood transferred, the Deputy Director, Consolidation confined its order to the direction to the new Settlement Officer, Consolidation to decide the appeal. It is alleged that the petitioner was not notified about the date nor was served with any notice and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation proceeded to give verdict in appeal by means of the order dated 10.6.1999 which leaned in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The necessary consequence of this decision in appeal, according to the allegations in the petition, was that it affected the original holdings of the petitioner besides depriving him of his only source of irrigation. It would further transpire from the allegations in the petition that since the order passed was ex parte, the petitioner preferred restoration application and at the same time, approached this Court by means of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court, by means of the order dated 14.8.2002, disposed of the petition appended with directions to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to decide the restoration application within two months. In the meantime, aggrieved by the way ward manner of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, there was up-swell of opinion in the village against the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Baghpat/Meerut and the entire village represented to the Commissioner, Consolidation, U. P., Lucknow, for transfer of cases pending before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Baghpat/Meerut, to another district as a consequence of which orders were passed to transfer the cases pending in the Court of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Baghpat/Meerut, to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bulandshahr. Since the restoration application was not decided within the stipulated time in terms of the directions contained in the order of this Court, the petitioner again approached this Court and this second petition of the petitioner came to be decided with the direction to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation concerned to decide the restoration application with expedition. In the post-disposal stage of the writ petition, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 moved an application seeking modification in the order to the effect that the order should be restricted to the matter concerning the petition pending before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, As a consequence, the order was accordingly modified by means of the order dated 13.12.2002, Before the order of the Court could be complied with by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bulandshahr, the cases were again ordered to be transferred to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Baghpat/Meerut, vide order dated 10.12.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, U. P., Lucknow. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, fixed 18.12.2002 and thereafter, 21.12.2002 and on 24.12.2002, he passed the order rejecting the application for restoration. It is alleged by the petitioner that this order too was passed without affording opportunity of hearing and that the order was passed on 24.12.2002 which was not one of the working days in the week prescribed for Settlement Officer, Consolidation at Baghpat/Meerut.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at prolix length. The learned counsel for the petitioner craved for attention of the Court to the fact that notwithstanding transfer order passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, U. P., Lucknow, thereby transferring all cases including the case of the petitioner from the end of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Baghpat/Meerut, to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bulandshahr, the record of cases ordered to be transferred were never transmitted and on their re-transfer for Baghpat/Meerut, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation proceeded to pass the order in post-haste manner which leaned in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It is further submitted that entire hierarchy from the level of Settlement Officer, Consolidation to the very bottom, seemed to be antagonistic and hostile to the petitioner and they acted in the matter in league with the respondents to the detriment of the petitioner. The learned counsel also drew attention of the Court to another disquieting feature that in the impugned order, one Dharam Pal, advocate is cited to have argued the case on behalf of the petitioner while the fact was that the aforesaid counsel was never engaged by the petitioner and this farce was enacted by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, just to provide justification to his otherwise unsustainable order.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew my attention to the order dated 10.12.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, U. P., Lucknow, thereby directing to transmit the records to the Settlement Officer. Consolidation, Bulandshahr and lamented that it was never transmitted to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bulandshahr on account of connivance by the ministerial staff and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Baghpat/ Meerut, who were in league with the respondents. The statement of Lekhpal has been annexed as Annexure-19 to the petition to hammer home the point that Settlement Officer, Consolidation, acted as an obstacle in the way of compliance with the directions contained in the order of the Commissioner, Consolidation, U. P., Lucknow. He also submitted that the order rejecting the application for restoration was passed on 'dies non' (non-working day) i.e., 24.12.2002 was not the day prescribed for functioning of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Baghpat/Meerut, it is a manifestation that the officer was guided by oblique motive. The assertion to this effect is embodied in para 38 of the writ petition. I checked the counter-affidavit for reply to this assertion and it would appear that this assertion has not been repudiated. The learned counsel also drew attention of the Court to the assertion made in para 42 of the writ petition, the text of which is that in the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 24.12.2002, one Dharam Pal, advocate is enumerated as counsel who argued the case on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner never engaged this advocate as his counsel. I tried to ascertain the veracity of this assertion from the counter-affidavit and it appears that the assertion has not been specifically refuted save saying that Annexure-24 filed in support of this assertion seemed to be forged one.
5. Yet another aspect asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, i.e., 18.5.1999 and 24.12.2002-one allowing the appeal in favour of the respondents and the other rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for restoration of appeal, have been made in avowed disregard to the principles of natural justice, i.e., without affording any opportunity of hearing. It brooks no dispute that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, was exercising power of a deemed court and the necessary requirement for it was to act Judicially and to make a speaking order after affording due opportunity of hearing. It is well-settled that necessity to give reasons and opportunity to the parties is an elementary requirements of quasi-judicial process and in view of this, the authorities must take their decisions in accordance with law. It would appear from the record that first ex parte order was passed on 10.6.1999 by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and ever-since then, the petitioner has been on the run to seek redressal of his grievances. My conscience is in consternation to notice that various authorities who were approached by the petitioner along with the two orders passed by this Court for expeditious disposal of the matter, acted with complete insensitivity and instead of mitigating his hardship, or taking any accommodative attitude, adopted a lackadaisical approach not comporting with the conduct of a quasi-judicial authority. Before parting with this case, I must observe that what must cause greater concern is that this is not the first instance when the consolidation courts have come under adverse comment by this Court for lack of judicial approach in their dealing with the cases, There is thus felt need to devise a fool proof mechanism so that phrase 'Litigant Interest is Supreme' may be up-born in its true spirit.
6. Coming to grips with the assertion that no opportunity of heaving was afforded nor was the petitioner given any notice, attention has been drawn to the turgid assertion contained in para 15 of the writ petition. The assertions made in para 15 may usefully be excerpted below :
"15. Thai it is relevant to mention here that no notice whatsoever was issued from the Court of learned Settlement Officer of Consolidation and by manipulation and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the learned Settlement Officer of Consolidation passed order on 10.6.1999. A true copy of the order dated 10.6.1999 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-8 to this writ petition."
In order to assay the veracity of the assertions, I searched the counter-affidavit for its repudiation. The assertions remain uncontroverted inasmuch as the paragraph in question has been omitted in the counter-affidavit for the purposes of reply. In the circumstances, it leaves no manner of doubt, to believe that the orders impugned have been passed in avowed disregard of the principles of natural justice and fair adjudication has been denied to the petitioner. On this count alone, the orders impugned herein cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed. To cap it all, from a perusal of the order dated 10.6.1999, it is quite obvious that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, has not adverted to any of the grievances of the petitioner nor is there any reference to the arguments of the petitioner in the order in its entirety. It thus leaves no manner of doubt that the grievance of the petitioner that he was not heard is loaded with some substance. Yet another circumstance which gives resonance to the grievance of the petitioner is the factum that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, did not assign any reason as to how and why the order passed upto the stage of Consolidation Officer was erroneous nor is there any finding in justification of giving plots 774 and 775 comprising in original holding of the petitioner to the opposite parties qua the provisions of Section 19 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
7. In the above conspectus, I am of the view that the approach resorted to by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Baghpat/Meerut, was other than judicial and fair adjudication, in my considered view, has been denied to the petitioner. This case also furnishes speaking example that fair justice was reduced to a mere parody by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, seemed to be guided more by whims and caprices than by scrupulous adherence to the rules of procedure and the principles of natural justice which a court of law is enjoined to observe.
8. As a result of foregoing discussion, the judgment and orders dated 10.6.1999 and 24.12.2002, passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Baghpat/Meerut, are quashed and the matter is remitted to the Settlement Officer, concerned for decision afresh in accordance with law and after observing the principle of natural justice and fair play.
9. At this stage, both the counsel for the parties conjoined to press home the plea that the matter should be transferred to some neighbouring district for decision by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who will be unconcerned with the heat generated by the case and would adjudicate upon the matter in a dispassionate manner after scanning the merits of the case. In view of the joint prayer, the case is ordered to be transferred to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar, studded with the direction that the concerned authority shall decide the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the record at his end. The record of the case, it is further directed, shall be transmitted to the aforesaid Court within 10 days positively from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar, on 7th April, 2003.
10. Since allegations of grave nature have been levelled reflecting on the manner of the working of the concerned officers working as Settlement Officer, Consolidation and its ministerial staff, of omission and commission, a copy of this order along with the copy of the writ petition be despatched to the Principal Secretary (Revenue) Government of U. P. for enquiry and action either by himself or by some officer not below the rank of Special Secretary. The enquiry, it is directed, must be taken to some finality within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is allowed with above directions.