1. Heard Sri Himanshu Kumar Bachhil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party nos. 1, 2 & 6, Sri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4. Sri Mohan Singh has accepted notice on behalf of the Gram Sabha-opposite party no. 5.
2. For the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite party no. 3 is dispensed with.
3. The petitioner filed an application under Rule 109-A (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, which was time barred and, as such, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed for condonation of delay.
4. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the learned counsels for both the sides on 06.02.2021, fixed 11.02.2021 for disposal on the point of limitation, against which the private opposite parties filed revision in which the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 10.02.2021 admitted the revision and stayed the further proceedings before the Consolidation Officer.
5. Sri Himanshu Kumar Bachhil submits that the revision against the order dated 10.02.2021, was not maintainable, the order dated 10.02.2021 being an interlocutory order, in view of Section 48 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'the Act, 1953'), and therefore the order dated 10.02.2021 is without jurisdiction.
6. Sri Mohiuddin Khan, submits that the order dated 10.02.2021 has been passed with due opportunity of hearing to the parties which does not call for any interference. He fairly submits that Revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 does not lie against interlocutory order.
7. In view of the questions involved upon which legal position is settled and as the Court is not entering into the factual dispute, if any, the counter affidavit is not being called.
8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, reads as under:-
"Revision and reference.- (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or 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 an interlocutory order] passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or 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).
[Explanation- [(1)] For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation.] Explanation (2) - For the purposes of this section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceeding, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding.
[Explanation (3). - The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence.]?
10. A bare perusal of Section 48 (1) of the Act, 1953 shows that the revision is not competent against the interlocutory order.
11. In Veeresh Singh vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Farrukhabad and Ors. [2013 (3) ADJ 702], this Court, after considering the meaning of the word "interlocutory order" as also in Section 48(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has held that the revision against the interlocutory order under Section 48 of the Act is not maintainable.
12. It is apt to reproduce paragraph nos. 7, 8 & 9 of the Veeresh Singh (supra) as under:-
"7. From the bare reading of the aforesaid Section it would transpire that the revision would be maintainable against any order except the interlocutory order. The interlocutory order has been explained in Explanation (2) of the aforesaid Section, where it is provided that for the purposes of this Section the expression interlocutory order in relation to a case or proceeding, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding.
8. The literal meaning of the word interlocutory order has been defined in various dictionaries as under:
(1) Law Lexicon (P. Ramanath Ayer) 1997 Edition: Interlocutory order: An interlocutory order is one which is made pending the case and before a final hearing on the merits.
An interlocutory order is made to secure some end and purpose necessary and essential to the progress of the suit, and generally collateral to the issues formed by the pleadings and not connected with the final judgment.
(2) Halsburys Law of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 26, Paragraph 506:
Interlocutory order: An order which does not deal with the final rights of the parties, but either - (1) is made before judgment and gives no final decision on the matters in dispute, but is merely on a matter of procedure, or (2) is made after judgment, and merely directs how the declarations of right already given in the final judgment are to be worked out, is termed Interlocutory. An interlocutory order, even though not conclusive of the main dispute, may be conclusive as to the subordinates matter with which/ideals.
(3) Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th Edition:
Interlocutory: (of a decree or judgment) given provisionally during the course of a legal action.
On bare perusal of the meaning of the word interlocutory order, it would transpire that an order, which does not have the effect of finality of the proceedings and it is an order in a pending proceeding, which is made during the progress of an action and which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties.
9. The word interlocutory order has also been used in Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the same came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Amar Nath and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , where the Apex Court has held that the term interlocutory order merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. In the case of V.C. Shukla Vs. State through C.B.I., , the Apex Court held that the interlocutory order has to be construed in contradiction to or in contrast with final order, it means not a final order, but an intermediate order. It is made between the commencement of an action and the entry of the judgment. Reverting back to the facts of this case, as would appear from the record that here, in this case, nothing has been decided. The order accepting or refusing the evidence, impugned in the revision, in my considered view, would not fall in the ambit of a final order, as the matter is still subjudice before the Consolidation Officer, if anything turns on the statements filed on affidavit, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same before the higher Court by way of filing appeal/revision."
13. From perusal of the order dated 06.02.2021 (annexure no. 14), it is evident that by this order, nothing was decided by the Consolidation Officer. Only the date 11.02.2021, was fixed for disposal on the matter of limitation. The order dated 06.02.2021 does not decide any lis nor touches on any important right or liability of any of the parties.
14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 06.02.2021, being interlocutory, the revision there-against was not maintainable under Section 48 (1) of the Act, 1953. The order dated 10.02.2021 impugned in the petition is without jurisdiction.
15. Consequently, the order dated 10.02.2021 is quashed. The order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the Consolidation Officer is revived.
16. The Consolidation Officer, Ayodhya, shall proceed to decide the matter pending before him, as per law, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, including opposite party no. 3, with due notice to them, if there is no other legal impediment.
17. Writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021 Nitesh