Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 21724 of 2005 Petitioner :- Khalid Kamal Respondent :- D.D.C. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Shukla,Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dr. V.K. Rai,S.K. Singh,Sankatha Rai,Suresh Chandra Varma,V.K. Rai
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Sri A.K. Shukla, counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Varma representing respondent nos. 3 to 7 as well as Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 2.
It transpires from the records that by order dated 28.10.1983 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the name of respondent nos. 3 to 7 was directed to be mutated in the revenue records in place of Abrar Hasan i.e. the father of the petitioner. Abrar Hasan was the original tenure holder of the disputed property and order dated 28.10.1983 was allegedly passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of some compromise entered into between Abrar Hasan and respondent nos. 3 to 7. Against the order dated 28.10.1983, the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') registering Revision No. 1887 of 1995. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad vide his order dated 3.11.2004 dismissed the aforesaid revision as not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner had a remedy to file an appeal against the order dated 28.10.1983 and revision against the aforesaid order was not maintainable. The aforesaid opinion recorded by the revisional court in its order dated 3.11.2004 is contrary to law in view of the judgment of this Court reported in Smt. Taluka Devi vs Assistant Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh & Anr. 1981 RD (120) wherein this Court held that the revisional court was fully empowered to examine the proceedings of any sub-ordinate authority and in law there was no bar for a party to approach the revisional court without preferring an appeal and in suitable case, the revisional court can examine the correctness, legality and appropriateness of any order passed by any sub-ordinate authority.
In view of the aforesaid, without entering into merits of the claim of either parties to the case, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 3.11.2004 passed by respondent no. 1 is hereby quashed.
The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass fresh orders in Revision No. 1887 of 1995 after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. It is directed that Revision No. 1887 of 1995 shall be decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him by either of the parties.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Satyam