IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that the finality of orders under Section 9-B(3) of the U.P.C.H. Act is subject to exceptions, allowing for revisions under Section 48.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents as well as learned counsel for Gaon Sabha.

2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, this Court proceeds to decide the instant writ petition finally, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties who are present in the Court, without calling for their respective affidavits.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.') whereby revision filed on behalf of the petitioner, arising out of proceeding under Section 9-B of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act'), has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

4. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is manifested that the question involved in the instant writ petition lies in a narrow compass as to whether revision under section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'S.O.C.') under Section 9-B(3) of U.P.C.H. Act is maintainable or not. D.D.C. has held that order passed by S.O.C. under section 9-B(3) of U.P.C.H. Act is final order on the merits of case, thus, revision against said order is not maintainable.

5. Section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act denotes the provision wherein any person aggrieved with the statement of principles prepared under Section 8-A of U.P.C.H. Act has legal right to challenge the same by moving an objection under Section 9-B(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. Sub section 2 discuss the situation where no objection has been filed against the statement of principles, however, the Consolidation Officer on his own wisdom, in case, comes to conclusion that there is need to examine the correctness of statement of principles, he shall make local inspection of the unit and pass appropriate order after due notice to the Consolidation Committee. Section 9-B(3) of U.P.C.H. Act gives statutory right to the aggrieved person to file an appeal against the order passed under sub section 1 and 2 of Section 9-B. For ready reference Section 9B of U.P.C.H. Act is quoted herein below :-

"9-B. Disposal of objections on the Statement of Principles.-

(1) Where objections have been filed against the Statement of Principles under Section 9, the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall, after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned and after taking into consideration the views of the Consolidation Committee, submit his report to the Consolidation Officer, who shall dispose of the objections in the manner prescribed.

(2) Where no objections have been filed against the Statement of Principles within the time provided therefor under Section 9, the Consolidation Officer shall, with a view to examining its correctness, make local inspection of the unit, after giving due notice to the Consolidation Committee, and may thereafter make such modifications or alterations in the Statement of Principles as he may consider necessary.

(3) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Consolidation Officer under sub-section (1), or sub-section (2), may, within 21 days of the date of the order, file an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, whose decision, except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, shall be final.

(4) The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, shall, before deciding an objection or an appeal, make local inspection of the unit after giving due notice to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee.)"

6. Language employed under sub section 3 of Section 9-B unequivocally enunciates that the order passed by the appellate court shall be final "except as otherwise provided by or under this Act". The D.D.C., in his own wisdom, has misread and misinterpreted the aforesaid phrased a