Back
2010 Supreme(All) 2346
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Prafulla C.Pant, J.
Sanjog & Ors. -Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Consolidation/Additional Collector, District Haridwar & Ors. -Respondent
Writ Petition(M/S) No. 913 of 2003
Decided On : 22-7-2010
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the review jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities, as outlined in the UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and the interpretation of the same by the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court.
Headnote:
Consolidation - Review Jurisdiction - UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Section 20, 21(2), 48 - The court discussed the nature of the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the limitations on the review jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities. The court referred to the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Shivraji vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation 1997(88) Revenue Decision page 562, which held that the Consolidation Authorities cannot review or recall their final orders in exercise of inherent powers, and that the power of review can be exercised only when the statute provides for such power.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of orders related to consolidation operations in Village Jhabrera Khurd, Tehsil Roorkee, under the UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation had no power to set aside an order, particularly when he had not held that the order passed was an ex-parte order. The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the legality of the revisional court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court, which held that the Consolidation Authorities cannot review or recall their final orders in exercise of inherent powers, and that the power of review can be exercised only when the statute provides for such power.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed.
Heard.
2. By means of this writ petition moved under article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 30.08.2003, passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector, Haridwar, in revision no. 475 of 2002-03 and order dated 03.06.2003 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Roorkee, in Appeal No. 946. By said order Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Roorkee, has set aside his own order dated 02.09.2002, dismissing the appeal. By the impugned order dated 30.08.2003, the revisional court, Dy. Director of Consolidation, Haridwar, has affirmed the subsequent order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, Village Jhabrera Khurd, Tehsil Roorkee, was under consolidation operations. The respondent no. 3 and 4 were the original tenure holders of plot no. 25/1 and plot no. 25/2. The Consolidation Officer proposed same numbers in consolidation for the respondent no. 3 and 4 to which the objections were filed by the writ petitioners under section 20 of UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, praying that the writ petitioners/objectors be given chaks in 25/1 or in 25/2 in lieu of 25/3. On said objections, Consolidation Officer passed order dated 20.02.2002, allowing correction accordingly as prayed by the petitioners. Aggrieved by said order, respondent no. 3 filed an appeal under section 21 (2) of the aforesaid act, which was numbered as appeal no. 946 before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 02.09.2002 (copy Annexure-10 to the petition). In said order it is mentioned that the parties were heard. The appeal was dismissed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation holding that the appeal has no force. It appears that thereafter an application dated 16.09.2002 (copy Annexure-11 to the petition) was moved by respondent no.3 praying that the appeal be decided on merits and ex-parte order be set aside. On said application, Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation passed order dated 03.06.2003 and after hearing the appeal set aside the order dated 02.09.2002. Aggrieved by order dated 03.06.2003 the writ petitioners filed revision under section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before Dy. Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector, Haridwar., and Said Authority dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners have challenged the order dated 03.06.2003, passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Roorkee, on the ground that he had no power to review or set aside his own order. It is further pleaded that the revisional court i.e. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Haridwar, has committed error of law in up holding the said order.
5. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4, it is directed that the impugned order suffers from no illegality. It is contended on their behalf that the order dated 03.06.2003, is order simply recalling the ex-parte order dated 02.09.2002, and as such, rightly upheld by the revisional court.
6. It is settled principle of law that if the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, is an ex-parte order, the same can be recalled by such authority. However, as to the exercise of the review jurisdiction, said authority has no such power. In this connection, Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Smt. Shivraji vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation 1997(88) Revenue Decision page 562, has held that the Consolidation Authorities, cannot review or recall their final orders in exercise of inherent powers. It has been further held in the aforesaid case, that the power of the review can be exercised only when the statute provides for such power.
7. In the present case the impugned order dated 03.06.2003, passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Roorkee, passed in Appeal No. 946, is termed
