D. P. MOHAPATRA, CJ.

Pursuant to the order passed on 3-4-1995 by a Division Bench (B. K. Roy and R. R. K. Trivedi, JJ), referring the case for decision by a Full Bench this case has been listed before us.

2. Initially the case was listed before a single Judge of this Court (B. K. Roy, J. ). The question referred by the Single Judge to the Division Bench was formulated as under:

"whether it is open for the consolidation authorities to review/recall their final orders exer cising inherent powers even though the U. R Con solidation of Holdings Act, 1953 does not vest them any review jurisdiction?. "

The Division Bench, on consideration of the question, was of the view that the point should be decided by a Full Bench since there are some decisions of Division Benches of this Court tailing the view that the consolidation authorities could review the final orders passed by them in exercise of inherent powers. The Division Bench seized of this case referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 S. C. 436-Laxman Purshottam Pimputkar v. The State of Bombay and others, AIR 1960 S. C. 641- Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh and others) and AI. R. 1965 S. C. 1457-Patel Chumbhai Dajibhai v. Narayanarao Khanderao Janbekar and also the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Lachmana alias Hubraja v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U. P. Lucknow and others, (1966) R. D. 419, and some other decisions and felt that the matter should be decided by a Full Bench as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Verma v. State of M. P, (1995) 2 SCC 129; hence the order dated 3-4- 1995.

3. The factual back drop of the case leading to the present proceeding, same un necessary details, may be stated thus; Respondents 3 to 7 filed an application for mutation of their names in respect of Chak No. 55 of village Semri, Taluka Purwa, Per-gana Arail, district Allahabad on the ground that respondent No. 8, Khilari son of Gaya Din has executed sale-deeds in their favour transferring his share in the chak. The writ petitioners raised objection to the said ap plication on several grounds including the absence of permission from the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) (respondent No. 2) before execution of the sale

deeds and that there was statutory bar against execution of the sale deeds. The Consolidation Officer, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, rejected the application for mutation filed by respondents 3 to 7. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respon dents 3 to 7 filed an appeal before the Settle ment Officer (Consolidation), who by his order dated 31-1- 1978 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer. The petitioners filed a revision peti tion before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad (respondent No. 1), who by his order dated 12-11-1979 allowed the revision. Thereafter, the contesting respon dents filed an application for review of the order. The petitioner filed objections against the review petition, inter alia, on the ground that the consolidation authorities have no power to review their order and, therefore the application for review is not maintainable. However, the Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation (respondent No. 1) by his order dated 15-2-1980 overruled the ob jection against maintainability of the review petition allowed the review petition and reversed his previous order. The said order is under challenge in the present writ peti tion. On the factual matrix of the case dis cussed above, by question quoted earlier arises for determination.

4. Concededly there is no specific provision in the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act) vesting power of review in the consolidation authorities, par ticularly the Deputy Director of Consolida tion, with whose power we are concerned in the present proceeding. Therefore, a con tention has been raised that the consolida tion authorities while discharg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document