JUDGMENT Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 3.4.1979 and 28.11.1994, passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, i.e., the Dy. Director of Consolidation. Gorakhpur and the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation.,Gorakhpur.
3. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition, are that plot No. 19 was recorded in the basic year khatauni belonging to the Gaon Sabha and the nature of the land was shown to be the banjar land. The respondent No. 3. Bhagwan Sahai. filed objection under Section 9A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and claimed himself to be the grove holder (bhumtdhar) of the land in dispute. The claim of the respondent No. 3, Bhagwan Sahai, was contested by the Gaon Sabha. It is alleged by the Gaon Sabha that no tree was planted by the respondent No. 3. Bhagwan Sahai, nor the land in dispute retains the character of grove, rather it is banjar land and is the property of the gaon sabha. The Consolidation Officer was directed to make local inspection of the plot in dispute and submit his report. Accordingly, the Consolidation Officer made local inspection of the land in dispute and submitted his report that the land in dispute does not bear the character of grove. The Consolidation Officer, accordingly, on the basis of the evidence available on the record rejected the objection of the contesting respondent and gave a finding that the contesting respondent has failed to prove that he is grove holder (Bhumidhar). Aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Gorakhpur dated 21.1.1974 the contesting respondent preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer. Consolidation. Gorakhpur. The appeal was allowed ex parte and the finding of the Settlement Officer. Consolidation was that the respondent No. 3. Bhagwan Sahai, be recorded as grove holder with effect from 1369 fasli. The judgment of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was challenged in revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act by the petitioner No. 2. The revision was time-barred. The memo of revision was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act giving explanation for condonation of delay. The Dy. Director of Consolidation entertained the revision, summoned the record of the case, perused it and heard the parties. The aforesaid revision was dismissed as not maintainable as well as being time-barred. This judgment is under challenge in this writ petition.
4. Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Dy. Director of Consolidation has committed error of law specially jurisdictional error in dismissing the revision as time barred and also as not maintainable as it was not filed by the Gaon Sabha. His submission is that the petitioner No. 2 was the member of the Gaon Sabha and if the Gaon Sabha for one reason or the other did not file the revision, the petitioner No. 2, who was member of the gaon sabha, had right to file the revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation and if the revision was filed then the Dy. Director of Consolidation, once he has summoned the record, he should not have observed that the revision is not maintainable. In support of his contention to the effect that even the member of the Gaon Sabha can file revision Shri Radhey Shyam learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a case in Major Rameshwar Sahai v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1973 AWR 238. In this case while interpreting the word 'interested person1 within the meaning of Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act the Court came to the conclusion that the property in dispute being the property of the Gaon Sabha every adult member in the village was entitled to raise objection in respect of the Gaon Sabha's property. His contention is that if every member of the village has right to raise objection under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act then he can also prefer appeal or revision.
5, The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no provision either in the Act or in the Rules that a party aggrieved must file revision or may file revision as mentioned in Section 11 of the aforesaid Act that every party aggrieved can file appeal. His submission is that a person who had right to file appeal as said in the aforesaid judgment referred to above, he can file revision. Therefore, the petitioner No. 2 who was member of the Caon Sabha as authority to file revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation. Therefore, the revision was maintainable and the Dy. Director of Consolidation should have decided the same on merit. His further submission is that if the Dy. Director of Consolidation was of the view that the revision is time-barred then he should have rejected the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and then considered the second point regarding maintainability or the revision. But as he has considered both the applications one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and secondly the review application together and had held that the revision is not maintainable the presumption will be that he entertained the revision as within time. Therefore the observation made by him that it was time-barred also is of no consequence and it is a fit case in which the Dy. Director of Consolidation should have decided the revision on merit.
6. Sri A. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent replied the argument of Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioner. His first submission is that when the revision was time-barred then it was not necessary for the Dy. Director of Consolidation to decide the same on merit. From a perusal of the judgment of the Dy. Director of Consolidation it is apparent that the revision was time barred which has been mentioned by the Dy. Director of Consolidation. The judgment of the Dy. Director of Consolidation further shows that there was carelessness on the part of petitioner No. 2 to file revision within time. His second submission is that when the appeal was filed by the respondent No. 3. Bhagwan Sahai, and it was allowed with a finding that the respondent No. 3 was grove holder and bhumidhar and the Gaon Sabha did not raise its little finger, who was contesting the case from the very beginning then the petitioner No. 2 being only member of the Gaon Sabha had no authority to prefer the revision because the aggrieved party was the Gaon Sabha and the members vested in the Gaon Sabha and it does not vest in individual or any member of the gaon sabha. Therefore, the revision filed by the Gaon Sabha was not maintainable and the judgment of the Dy. Director of Consolidation does not suffer from any error of law much less manifest error of law.
7. His further submission is that in Para 128 of the Gaon Sabha Manual, there is a prescribed procedure for prosecuting the case on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and his submission is that there must be some resolution in accordance with the rules and laws framed for the purpose of deciding the case on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and unless a resolution is passed to a particular person who is member of the Gaon Sabha to prosecute the case on behalf of the Gaon Sabha no one can date to file revision on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. Therefore, the Dy. Director of Consolidation has rightly rejected the revision as not maintainable. Moreover, the revision was dismissed as time-barred, therefore, both the orders are not illegal and the writ petition should be dismissed.
8. In support of his contention, he has placed before the Court the provisions of Para 128 of the Gaon Sabha Manual and further placed reliance in a case in 1969 RD 356.
9. Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply to the argument advanced by Sri Shukla has reiterated the same argument and has further submitted that it is a fit case in which matter should be sent back to the Dy. Director of Consolidation to restore the revision to its original number and decide the same on merit.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view that it is a fit case in which the judgments of the Dy. Director of Consolidation and Assistant Settlement Officer. Consolidation should be quashed and the matter should be sent back, to the Dy. Director of Consolidation to decide the same on merit. The reason for sending back the case to the Dy. Director of Consolidation is that under Section 48 of the aforesaid Act, there is no provision that who shall file the revision rather it is mentioned that the Dy. Director of Consolidation may call for the record. The relevant provisions of Section 48 of the aforesaid Act is quoted herein below :
"48. Revision and Reference.--(1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided for 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 reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that it does not mention that any party aggrieved may file revision against the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, rather it says that the Dy. Director of Consolidation shall exercise its power and pass necessary order as provided under Section 48 of the aforesaid Act. Rule of limitation is there and Section 48 of the aforesaid Act prescribes rules for filing revision as from the reading, of Section 48 cf the aforesaid Act, it is clear that the Dy. Director of Consolidation has suo motu power to entertain the revision, summon the record of the subordinate court and decide the revision. Accordingly, its rule of limitation will not come into the way of the Dy. Director of Consolidation. However. this provision of Section 48 of the aforesaid Act has been interpreted by this Court in a case in Abdul Junaid v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others. 1972 ALJ 435, wherein it has been held that Section 48 does not confer an 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. The same principle applies to the fact of the present case. From the judgment. it is clear that he has summoned the record, perused the evidence and also considered the evidentiary value of the entries. As a matter of fact, he has considered the merit of the case but dismissed the revision as not maintainable. While dealing with the power under Section 48 of the aforesaid Act, the Division Bench has observed that 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 be 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 judgment was also considered in Full Bench of this Court, which is in Rama Kant Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, AIR 1975 All 126. Considering the legal position and power given to the Dy. Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the aforesaid Act. I am of the view that the Dy. Director of Consolidation shall restore the revision to its original number and decide the revision on merit. He shall not dismiss the same on the point of limitation nor he shall dismiss the same on the point of maintainability, rather decide the case after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties as provided under law and shall pass a reasoned order.
13. I therefore, allow the writ petition and quash the order dated 3.4.1979 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation. Gorakhpur and direct him to restore the revision to its original number and decide the same on merit, as per observations made above.
14. There shall be no order as to cost.