Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Surya Baksh Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
Dy. Director Consolidation Ayodhya & Ors. - Respondent
Consolidation No. -21059 of 2021
Decided On : 23-09-2021
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397 - Limitation Act - Section 5 - Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 48 (1) and 48 - Condonation of delay - Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case - Petitioner filed an application under Rule 109-A (1)of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, which was time barred and, as such, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed for condonation of delay - Consolidation Officer after hearing learned counsels for both the sides disposal on the point of limitation, against which the private opposite parties filed revision in which Deputy Director of Consolidation by order admitted revision and stayed the further proceedings before Consolidation Officer – Held, Apex Court has held that term interlocutory order merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch important rights or liabilities of the parties - Apex Court held that interlocutory order has to be construed in contradiction to or in contrast with final order, it means not a final order, but an intermediate order - It is made between the commencement of an action and the entry of the judgment. Reverting back to the facts of this case, as would appear from the record that here, in this case, nothing has been decided - Order accepting or refusing evidence, impugned in revision, in my considered view, would not fall in the ambit of a final order, as the matter is still subjudice before the Consolidation Officer - Consolidation Officer, shall proceed to decide matter pending before him, as per law, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, including opposite party no. 3, with due notice to them, if there is no other legal impediment - Writ petition is allowed
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
1. Heard Sri Himanshu Kumar Bachhil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party nos. 1, 2 & 6, Sri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4. Sri Mohan Singh has accepted notice on behalf of the Gram Sabhaopposite party no. 5.
2. For the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite party no. 3 is dispensed with.
3. The petitioner filed an application under Rule 109-A (1)of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, which was time barred and, as such, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed for condonation of delay.
4. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the learned counsels for both the sides on 06.02.2021, fixed 11.02.2021 for disposal on the point of limitation, against which the private opposite parties filed revision in which the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 10.02.2021 admitted the revision and stayed the further proceedings before the Consolidation Officer.
5. Sri Himanshu Kumar Bachhil submits that the revision against the order dated 10.02.2021, was not maintainable, the order dated 10.02.2021 being an interlocutory order, in view of Section 48 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'the Act, 1953'), and therefore the order dated 10.02.2021 is without jurisdiction.
6. Sri Mohiuddin Khan, submits that the order dated 10.02.2021 has been passed with due opportunity of hearing to the parties which does not call for any interference. He fairly submits that Revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 does not lie against interlocutory order.
7. In view of the questions involved upon which legal position is settled and as the Court is not entering into the factual dispute, if any, the counter affidavit is not being called.
8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, reads as under:-
(2) Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub-section (3).
(3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1).
[Explanation-[(1)] For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation.]
Explanation (2) -For the purposes of this section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceeding, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding.
[Explanation (3). -The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral or documentary evidence.]”
10. A bare perusal of Section 48 (1) of the Act, 1953 shows that the revision is not competent against the interlocutory order.
11. In Veeresh Singh vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Farrukhabad and O
The court reaffirmed that procedural compliance under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is mandatory, and non-adherence, especially concerning the recording of compromises, nullifies the authori....
In time-barred proceedings, no interim order can be granted without condoning the delay, as established under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The right of appeal is a vested right which accrues to the litigant from the date the proceedings commenced and continues till the proceedings are finally decided. The deeming clause in Section 52(2)....
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to decide appeals on their merits rather than remanding to subordinate authorities, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review under Sectio....
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to examine and decide cases on merits without unnecessary remand, emphasizing the need for expedient resolution of disputes.
The maintainability of revisions must be assessed before summoning records, and original records are essential for deciding revisions under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
