Back
2005 Supreme(All) 2430
[2006(1) ADJ 499 (All)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.
CHANDRA BHAN ......Petitioner
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 53754, 43882 of 2002, 63741 of 2005, 13384, 4674 of 2003 and 63949 of 2005, decided on 13th December, 2005)
Counsel :
S.K. Verma, Sidharth Verma, S.N. Tripathi, Piyush Misra, Pt. Dharm Narain Dubey, A.P. Tiwari, S.S. Tripathi, Ramesh Chandra for the Petitioners; H.P. Mishra, Dr. R.G. Padia, Prakash Padia, S.C. Pandey, R.S. Misra, N.D. Shukla, Arun Kumar, S.K. Srivastava for the Respondents; R.P. Gupta as Amicus Curiae.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953—Sections 9, 9-A, 11, 12, 20, 21 and 48—Constitution of India—Articles 14, 16, 21, 50, 226, 235, 236 and 237—Sovereign power—Exercise of—Consolidation authorities exercising powers relating to adjudication of title and declaration of rights relating to agricultural land—Perform judicial function—For which these authorities are not equipped with necessary qualifications of law and requisite training—As such, a separate Revenue Judicial Service Cadre should be constituted by State Government—This requirement is not only mandate of Article 50 but also constitutional obligation of State Government under Articles 235, 236 and 237—High Court issued writ of mandamus to State Government, keeping in view several other relevant features also, for taking immediate steps for creation of separate Revenue Judicial Cadre, if possible within a period of one year—Present arrangement of adjudication system shall continue till creation of new cadre—Qualifications for appointment of members of this new cadre shall be at par with members of judicial service and they shall be imparted judicial training consistent with standard of training of members of State Judicial Service under control of High Court. [Paras 44, 45, 69, 75, 76, 78, 80 to 84, 107 to 110 and 112]
(B) Judicial review—Scope of—Justice Delivery System—Principle of “Nemo debit essee judex in propria causa”—Applicability of this principle in justice delivery system—In revenue matters if executive officers are appointed at presiding officers and matter involves dispute between a tenure-holder and State or Gaon Sabha, principle gets attracted which means “no one should be a Judge in his own cause”—Executive Officer being officers of State Government, are given to adjudicate such dispute—Their decisions on findings of fact are not open for judicial review also—Therefore, plea that their decisions are amenable to judicial review—Also, not justified. [Paras 70, 71, 73 and 74]
(C) Words and phrases—Words Court and Tribunal—Distinction between—Considered—Consolidation authorities are not Courts but vested with certain powers of Court with regard to procedure. [Para 61]
Hon’ble S.N. Srivastava, J.—These cases have been knit together for being heard and decided as a composite case with the consensus amongst the counsel on a question common to all the cases under scrutiny before this Court and also that the challenge in all these cases is focused on orders passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation.
2. Factual matrix of each writ petition may be noticed in brevity before proceeding ahead.
Writ Petition No. 53754 of 2002
Writ Petition No. 43882 of 2002
3. Orders impugned in these two writ petitions passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation i.e. orders dated 26th August, 2002 are one and the same. These orders have been passed in exercise of power under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and relate to allotment. The impugned orders as the record indicates, were subsequently reviewed by another order dated 9.9.2002 and a fresh order was passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. The third order passed in the series by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is dated 11th Sept. 2002 by which schedule which formed part of the earlier order dated 9.9.2002 was again amended. In both the above petitions, notices were issued and counter affidavit was filed by the parties as well as by the State.
Writ Petition No. 63741 of 2005
4. The orders impugned in this writ petition are dated 12.9.2005 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and dated 30.4.2005 passed by Consolidation Officer. The writ petition has its genesis in proceeding under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It would transpire from the record that the petitioners claimed their rights on the basis of Will after the death of Ram Murti Pandey. The claims of the petitioners were allowed by Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 24.3.2005. Aggrieved by this order, Smt. Sharda Devi Opp. Party preferred an application for recall of said order claiming herself to be the widow of Ram Murti Pandey. The petitioners repudiated the claim of the Opp. Party. By means of order-dated 30.4.2005, the Consolidation Officer allowed the restoration application by a cryptic order without assigning any reasons for his conclusion. The revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed.
Writ Petition No. 63949 of 2005.
5. In this petition petitioner has canvassed the validity of order dated 7.6.2005 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision which had been filed impugning the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 5.7.2004 and 23.8.2004 passed on recall application arising out of proceeding under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It would appear from the record that the appeal of Opp. Party was dismissed for default on 13.1.2004 and restoration application dated 30.7.2004 which was filed after lapse of about two years was allowed although without assigning any reasons for his conclusion and application of mind and without condoning delay. The application to recall the order was dismissed and revision was also dismissed.
Writ Petition No. 4674 of 2003
6. This matter relates to allotment of Chak. The orders impugned herein are order dated 23.12.2002 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) by which revision was allowed on the ground that the appellate court did not consider anything and allowed the appeal without application of mind.
Writ Petition No. 13384 of 2003
7. Orders impugned here is dated 11.2.2000 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the petitioner’s restoration application. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the original land of the petitioner was allotted to Gaon Sabha as Bachat Land and Pucca road was constructed thereon. It has been argued that the fact that number of persons has made their residential houses has not been taken into account. He further submitted that the effect of the impugned order that the petitioner will be restored to its original land which is now public property and cann
