Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Ashok Kumar, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 5.
The challenge is to the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 4.11.2010 whereby the order of the appellate authority dated 16.02.2009 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to decide the appeal as directed therein.
The contention raised is that the interference of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is uncalled for, inasmuch as, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has rightly set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer as the Consolidation Officer has recorded contradictory findings while setting aside the Issues No. 1, 2 and 3. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation found that while disposing of the matter, the inconsistency was clearly reflected in the order of the Consolidation Officer as the conclusions drawn are contrary to the facts that were found in favour of the petitioner. The Officer further found that Issue No. 4 was also not founded on evidence adduced and, therefore, the same requires a reconsideration.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the issues, which were required to be gone into on the basis of evidence adduced, there was no occasion for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have assumed the said mantle and decide the matter again by remanding it to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. He contends that a remand order is not required to be substituted by another remand order.
From a perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it appears that the appellate order has been set aside on the ground that the entire order of the Consolidation Officer has not been assessed and that the remand has been passed only on two issues. To my mind, there appears to be no error committed by the appellate authority having found two grounds to remand the matter back to the Consolidation Officer. The issue as to whether the property in dispute was ancestral and as to whether the sale deed is void or not were the issues which were required to be decided by the Consolidation Officer. That has not been dealt with. The appeal was, therefore, rightly allowed pointing out the requirement for retrial of the matter by the Consolidation officer himself. This, in my opinion, did not require any interference by the revisional authority.
Sri Ashok Kumar learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit and since the issue is purely legal and there being no dispute on facts, the matter may be decided finally.
He further submits that in any event if the remand order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is being maintained then a time period be fixed before the Consolidation Officer to dispose of the matter within a specified period of time.
Accordingly under the rules of the Court, the writ petition is finally disposed of in view of the reasons given hereinabove and the fact that the contesting respondents do not propose to file any counter affidavit.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 4.11.2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is set aside and the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation is upheld. The matter shall now be decided by the Consolidation Officer as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
Order Date :- 10.3.2011 Akv