SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Pat) 1233

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.
Bishwanath Rai, Son of Jagdeo Rai, resident of village-Bahadurpur, P.S.- Goraul, District-Vaishali – Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. Respondent
CWJC No.9928 of 1999
Decided On : 1.7.2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s Umesh Prasad Singh, Rajee Ranjan Prasad.
For the private-respondents: Mr. Ratna Deep Prasad.
For the State : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha.

The central legal point established in the judgment is that delegation of powers does not permit the same authority to exercise both appellate and revisional powers, especially when it leads to a conflict of jurisdiction.

Headnote:

Deputy Director of Consolidation - Challenge to ORDER :dated 29.06.1999 - Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, Section 10(6), Section 35 - The court discussed the powers of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to hear appeals and exercise revisional jurisdiction, the delegation of powers under Section 34(2) of the Act, and the conflict of jurisdiction arising from the same authority exercising both appellate and revisional powers.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petition challenges the ORDER :dated 29.06.1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, affirming the ORDER :dated 13.01.1998 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Vaishali in Appeal No.01/97. The petitioner contends that the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not exercise revisional jurisdiction over his own appellate ORDER :due to a conflict of jurisdiction.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, despite being authorized to exercise the powers of the Assistant Director of Consolidation, could not validly exercise revisional jurisdiction over an appellate ORDER :passed by himself. The court held that the delegation of powers did not allow the same authority to exercise both appellate and revisional powers.

Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of the powers of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to hear appeals, the delegation of revisional powers under Section 34(2) of the Act, and the conflict of jurisdiction arising from the same authority exercising both appellate and revisional powers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that delegation of powers does not allow the same authority to exercise both appellate and revisional powers, especially when it leads to a conflict of jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the principal authority delegated with the power by the legislature continues to have the power to adjudicate.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the ORDER :of the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed in the revisional jurisdiction was set aside. The matter was remanded to the revisional Court for reconsideration by an authority not subordinate to the Deputy Director.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ratna Deep Prasad, learned counsel for the private-respondents.

2. As pleadings are complete, with consent of parties this writ petition is disposed of at this stage itself. Challenge is to the ORDER :dated 29.06.1999 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur passed in Revision Case No.62/98 affirming the ORDER :dated 13.01.1998 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Vaishali in Appeal No.01/97.

3. A very piquant situation has arisen in this case. Briefly stated the undisputed facts are that a dispute arising out of consolidation proceedings was taken in appeal in terms of Section-10 (6) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Assistant Director of Consolidation. It was heard and disposed of by Deputy Director of Consolidation exercising the powers of Assistant Director of Consolidation. Petitioner being aggrieved preferred a revision in terms of Section 35 of the Act. That was heard and disposed of by the Deputy Director of Consolidation exercising the powers of Director Consolidation which ORDER :is under challenge.

4. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel makes brief submissions that once a Deputy Director of Consolidation had exercised appellate jurisdiction in the matter, then the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not exercise revisional jurisdiction over his own appellate ORDER :and such exercise of jurisdiction was bad. This situation, where the appeal is heard by the same authority who then decides to revise its own appellate ORDER :, has come about because of piquant situation and scheme obtaining under this Act.

5. First as to the power of Deputy Director to hear appeals. Section 10(6) is quoted hereunder : –

“10(6) Any person aggrieved by an ORDER :of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or Consolidation Officer under [sub-sections (3), (4) of (5)] may, within 30 days of such ORDER :, file an appeal before the Assistant Director of Consolidation, whose decision, except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, shall be final.”

6. A reference to the aforesaid provision would show that an appeal lies before the Assistant Director of Consolidation. The question is how the Deputy Director, Consolidation did hear the appeal. There are two aspects of the matter. First, if one reads the definition of Assistant Director of Consolidation as provided under Sub-section (4b) of Section 2, which reads as under :–


(4b) “Assistant Director of Consolidation” means an Officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector appointed as such by the State Government to exercise the powers and perform the duties of an Assistant Director of Consolidation under this Act or the rules made thereunder.

7. One would find that the State Government is authorized to appoint Officers not below the rank of Deputy Collector to exercise the powers and functions of Assistant Director of Consolidation and it is under this power the State Government has notified the Deputy Director of Consolidation to be one such person. Apart from this one may refer to Sub-section (4a) of Section 2, which is quoted hereunder : –

(4a) “Deputy Director of Consolidation” means an officer not below the rank of Additional District Collector appointed as such by the State Government to exercise such powers and perform such duties of the Director of Consolidation as may be delegated to him by the State Government and shall include an Assistant Director of Consolidation.”

8. It is provided that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, inter alia, would include Assistant Director of Consolidation. Thus, reading the two provisions aforesaid and the notification issued thereunder, it would appear that the powers and functions of Assistant Director of Consolidation can be exercised by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is becaus










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top