1965 Supreme(All) 92

Allahbad High Court
N.U.BEG
Bux Singh - Appellant
Versus
Joint Director of Consolidation, U. P., Lucknow - Respondent
Decided On : 07/20/1965

Headnote:

U.P. CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT, 1953 - SECTION 9 - DISPUTED CASES - INTERPRETATION - ORDER PASSED BY CONSOLIDATION OFFICER WITHOUT JURISDICTION - WRIT JURISDICTION - DISCRETIONARY REMEDY - EQUITABLE ORDERS - INTERFERENCE BY HIGH COURT.

Fact of the Case:

Dispute regarding khata No. 268 of village Gujra, Pargana Khairabad, Tahsil and District Sitapur, during the consolidation proceedings. The Khata in question was entered in the names of the petitioner Saheb Bux Singh and opposite party No. 6, Srimati Bhagwant Kunwar. Saheb Bux Singh filed an objection under S. 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on the 15th of April 1961, alleging that he was the sole tenure-holder of khata No. 268 and entry of the name of opposite party No. 6 along with him was, therefore, incorrect and should be expunged. Opposite party No. 6 did not prefer any objection under S. 9 of the Act before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. In spite of it the Assistant Consolidation Officer treated the case as a disputed one and referred it to the Consolidation Officer under S. 9(3) of the Act. On 26-6-1961 the Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection of the petitioner in his absence but restored the same again on the 20th of July 1961. On the 31st of July 1961, the Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of the petitioner and ordered that the name of opposite party No. 6 be expunged. On the 10th or September 1962, opposite party No. 6 moved an application for setting aside the order, dated the 31st of July 1961, passed during her absence. On the 7th of October 1962, the said application was dismissed in the absence of both parties. On the 17th of October 1962, the said opposite party No. 6 again moved an application through her agent for the restoration of her previous application. This was opposed by the petitioner and the Consolidation Officer on 23-11-1962 dismissed the same. The order of the Consolidation Officer is Annexure-6. On appeal, however, the Settlement Officer by his order, dated 7-1-63 set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 23-11-62 and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the application for setting aside the ex parte order, dated 31-7-61. Copy of this order is Annexure-7. A second appeal filed against the said order before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation was also dismissed on the 7th of February 1963, vide Annexure-9. The revision against the said order under S. 48 of the Act was dismissed by the Director of Consolidation on the 23rd of March 1963, vide Annexure-11. Subsequently the Consolidation Officer made an order on the 3rd of April 1963 allowing the restoration application and setting aside the ex parte order, dated the 31st of July 1961. He further fixed the 7th of April 1963, for evidence of both the parties, vide Annexure-12. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of orders of the Settlement Officer, dated 7th of January 1963 (Annexure-7), of the Deputy Director, dated the 7th of February, 1963 (Annexure-9), of the Joint Director, dated the 23rd of March 1963 (Annexure-11) and of the Consolidation Officer, dated the 3rd of April 1963 (Annexure-12).

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Director of Consolidation's view that the Consolidation Officer's order dated 1st July 1961 was without jurisdiction was incorrect, as there was a disputed case before the Assistant Consolidation Officer when Srimati Bhagwant Kunwar had not appeared before him to contest the application of Saheb Bux Singh. However, the court also held that writ remedy by way of certiorari is a discretionary remedy and where impugned orders are equitable and substantial justice seems to have been done to the parties as a result of such orders, this Court would not be inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction merely on the ground that such orders are wrong in law.

Issues: 1. Whether the Consolidation Officer's order dated 1st July 1961 was without jurisdiction? 2. Whether the impugned orders were equitable and substantial justice was done to the parties?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Director of Consolidation's view that the Consolidation Officer's order dated 1st July 1961 was without jurisdiction was incorrect, as there was a disputed case before the Assistant Consolidation Officer when Srimati Bhagwant Kunwar had not appeared before him to contest the application of Saheb Bux Singh. 2. The court also held that writ remedy by way of certiorari is a discretionary remedy and where impugned orders are equitable and substantial justice seems to have been done to the parties as a result of such orders, this Court would not be inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction merely on the ground that such orders are wrong in law.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned orders were equitable and substantial justice was done to the parties.