JUDGMENT Krishna Murari, J.
1. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai appearing for the respondent No. 3.
2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.
3. The dispute relates to khata No. 245 situate in village Sikandarpur District Ballia.
4. An objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) was filed by the respondents which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 21.3.2003. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ballia. Subsequently, on an application made by the petitioner the appeal was transferred to the court of Settlement Officer Consolidation, District Mau and came to be decided by order dated 1.2.2006. The respondents preferred a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia against the order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation District Mau. The petitioner raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia on the ground that he had no jurisdiction and the revision would lie only before Deputy Director of Consolidation Mau.
5. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia vide order dated 10.3.2006 overruled the objection and held that revision was maintainable before him.
6. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia has no jurisdiction to hear the revision against the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation Mau, Reliance in support of contention has been placed on a decision of learned Single Judge in the case of Darbari lal v. District Deputy Director of Consolidation Jalaun 1989 RD 304.
7. In reply it has been urged by the learned Counsel for the respondents that since only appeal was transferred from Ballia to Mau to be heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation Mau, the property in dispute was situate in district Ballia, as such the Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia will have jurisdiction to hear the revision. He has placed reliance on the judgment of learned single Judge in the case of Ram Das Rai v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1994 RD 62 and a Division Bench Judgment in the case of Shitla Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation U.P. Lucknow in camp at Faizabad and Ors. 1970 RD 270.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the case of Darbari Lal (supra ) the property in dispute was situate in district Jalaun. The appeal filed against the order of Consolidation Officer was transferred from Jalaun to the Court of Settlement Officer Consolidation Kanpur. Against the appellate order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation Kanpur, a revision was preferred before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Jaldun at Orai. Objection against the maintainability of the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Jalaun at Orai was rejected and the matter came to this Court. This Court after considering the provision of the Act and Rules Specially (sic) 48 and Rule 111 held that revisional court of Jalun at Orai will have no jurisdiction to hear the revision against the order of the appellate authority of Kanpur. The facts of the case of Darbari Lal are identical to the fact of the present case and the law laid down in the said case applies with full force.
9. In so far as the case of Ram Das Rai relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents is concerned the same is clearly distinguishable. In the case of Ram Das Rai the Consolidation Commissioner transferred some appeals pending in the court of Settlement Officer Consolidation Deoria to Sri Ram Chandra Yadav, Settlement officer Consolidation, Gorakhpur with a direction that he would hold camp at Deoria and decide the appeals. Against the appellate order revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Deoria. The question arose whether the revision would be maintainable before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Deoria or before Deputy Director of Consolidation Gorakhpur. Learned single Judge held that the revisions filed before Deputy Director of Consolidation Deoria were maintainable. It was held that the order passed by the Consolidation Commissioner directing Sri Ram Chandra Yadav, Settlement Officer Consolidation Gorakhpur to decide the appeal by holding a camp at Deoria was a direction within meaning of Sub-Section 2 of Section 42 of the Act and he would be deemed to be Settlement Officer consolidation Deoria and for this reason, revision filed before the Deputy Director Consolidation Deoria were held to be maintainable. The facts in so far as present case is concerned, are entirely different. In the present case, the appeals were transferred to be heard by the Settlement Officer Consolidation Mau, The facts being clearly distinguishable, the case of Ram Das Rai is of no help to the respondents. Even otherwise, the ratio of this decision supports the contention advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner.
10. Division bench judgment in the case of Shitla Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents also has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case of Shitala Prasad (supra ) revisional order was challenged on the ground that since the revision was not transferred by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad to the Deputy Director of Consolidation Lucknow in camp at Faizabad, it could not be heard and disposed of by him and his judgment is void for that reason. It was in the context of the aforesaid facts, the Division Bench held that a revision -application can be made to the Deputy Director of Consolidation and that all the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Uttar Pradesh have jurisdiction to hear the revision-application under Section 48 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the respondents has urged that in view of the observation made by division bench any Deputy Director of Consolidation will have jurisdiction to hear a revision-application and thus the revision filed before Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation Mau would be maintainable.
11. I am afraid the interpretation being given by the learned Counsel for the respondents to the observation made by the division bench are totally misconceived. The question before division bench was as to whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation could decide a revision without file being transferred to him by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation. While, rejecting the arguments that Officer hearing a revision - application gets jurisdiction to hear it by the authority of the order of transfer of the case to his file by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, it was observed by the division bench as follows;
This provision read along with various notifications issued by the State Government from time to time and the order of the Director clearly show that a revision-application can be made to a Deputy Director of Consolidation and that all the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Uttar Pradesh have jurisdiction to hear a revision application is not conferred by an order passed under Rule 65(1-A) but by the provision of the Act mentioned above and the notifications of the State Government.
12. The aforesaid observation made by the Division Bench has to be read with reference to the facts of the case and in context of the question which was being considered. If the aforesaid observation are to be read in the manner as suggested by the learned Counsel for the respondents in that case any Deputy Director of Consolidation in the entire State of U.P. could seize upon any case and decide it himself irrespective of the fact whether the dispute lies within territorial jurisdiction of the district where he is posted or not. This would not only be against the provisions of the Act but would also result into total chaos.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the two case laws relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents being clearly distinguishable are of no help to him. On the contrary the law laid down in the case of Darbari Lal with which I am in respectful agreement applies with full force.
14. As a result, the writ petition stands allowed, the impugned order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10.3.2006 is hereby quashed. The revision filed by the answering respondents before Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia is not maintainable and stands dismissed. It would however be open to the respondents to file revision afresh before the competent court.