IMPORTANT POINT
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must adhere to remand orders and consider all relevant records and admissions before making decisions regarding co-tenancy rights.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard Sri Ishwar Dutt Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for private opposite party and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for State.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.5.2002 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur (in short ''D.D.C.'') in Revision Nos. 246/365 and 1958/157, which were filed under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (in short ''Act of 1953''). Relevant portion of the order impugned dated 18.5.2002 on reproduction reads as under :

3. It would be relevant to refer at this stage that the order impugned dated 18.5.2002 was passed in compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1920 of 1983 (Rafi Mohd. and others v. Deputy Direction of Consolidation and others), Writ Petition No. 1422 of 1983 (Zabiullah and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others) and Writ Petition No. 2335 of 1983 (Anwar and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others).

4. In above indicated writ petitions, as appears from the judgment and order of Writ Court dated 7.8.1989, three orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities, i.e. order dated 15.9.1981 passed by Consolidation Officer (in short ''C.O.''), the order dated 29.6.1982 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation (in short ''S.O.C.'') and the order dated 9.2.1983 passed by the D.D.C., Faizabad, were in issue and were quashed.

5. The order impugned dated 18.5.2002 is based upon the order dated 16.3.1971 passed by Consolidation Officer and the same was passed after the judgment and order of this Court dated 7.8.1989 whereby this Court remanded the matter back and directed the D.D.C. to decide the issue afresh.

6. As such, this Court is of the view that before entering into the facts of the case, the relevant portion of judgment of this Court dated 7.8.1989 is reproduced hereinunder :

''Learned counsel for the petitioners in the two writ petition Nos. 1920 of 1983 and 1422 of 1983 further submitted that in any view of the matter the order of 16.3.1971 having become final could not be reopened in the remand proceedings and that no case for remand was at all made out since the remand order as stated hereinabove was based on two non-existent grounds no further proceedings could take place. Be that as it may it is seen that in the proceedings in remand the contending parties and in particular petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2335 of 1983 did not appear to have raised any issue pertaining to the shares of the parties and that having become final the matter could not be examined again. The impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities contained in annexures 14, 15 and 17 to writ petition No. 1920 of 1983, he submitted, could not be sustained.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners in writ petition No. 2335 of 1983, contended that in any view of the matter the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not suo motu quash the earlier order by which Anwar and others have been granted co-tenancy rights in Khata No. 255 that not being the subject-matter of a dispute before him. It is not disputed that under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the Deputy Director of Consolidation is vested with authority to pass an order suo motu where ends of justice require to do so subject to the conditions imposed in Section 46 of the said Act. The learned counsel contended that in any view of the matter Anwar and others had to be given an opportunity to show-cause before exercise of such authority could be made and the order quashed. The contention of the learned counsel is not without force and there appears to be an error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in as for as the exercise of suo moto power under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is concerned. The order cannot be sustained on thi