The Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot review its orders on merits, but the High Court may refrain from interference if substantial justice is achieved.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard Sri. Gibran Akhtar Khan, along with Mohd. Samar Ansari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director Consolidation, District-Lakhimpur Kheri (in short "D.D.C.") in Reference No.65/202254104300000358 (State v. Navisan Begum and Others) instituted under Section 48 (3) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"), annexed as Annexure No.1 to this petition.

3. The impugned order dated 10.08.2023 passed in exercise of power under Section 48(3) of the Act of 1953 has been challenged broadly on the ground that D.D.C. has no power to review its order(s) on merits.

4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments rendered in Writ - B No. 4510 of 2013 (Bhadiya v. D.D.C. and Others); Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33955 of 1997 (Shivdhari v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.); Writ Petition No. 721 of 2005 (Cons) (Jogi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others); Bux Singh v. Joint Director of Consolidation and Ors.; Babu Lal and Ors. v. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and Ors.; and Smt. Shivraji and Others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and Others 1997 SCC Online All 505. Reliance has also been place on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the judgment of Jagdamba Prasad (dead) through legal representatives and Others v. Kripa Shankar (dead) through legal representatives and Others (2014) 5 SCC 707.

5. Upon due consideration of the facts of the case including the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition, challenging the order impugned dated 10.08.2023 for the facts and reasons given hereinafter:-

(i) Gata No.1761 area 0.312 Hectare and Gata No.953 area 0.926 Hectare of Khata No.679 were recorded in the name of Rafeeq Khan, Shafeeq Khan and Vakeel Khan.

(ii) Rafeeq Khan executed a sale deed of his share in favour of respondent no.2/Navisan Begum and this sale deed relates to Gata No.1761.

(iii) Vide order dated 01.02.2016, the Consolidation Officer, Rampur Grant (in short C.O.) decided the Case No.290 instituted under Section 9A(2) of the Act of 1953.

(iv) As per the order dated 01.02.2016, Rafeeq Khan, predecessor in interest of the petitioners, was declared owner of 1/3 share of Gata No.953 area 0.926 Hectare.

(v) The order dated 01.02.2016 also says that the name of Navisan Begum/respondent no.2 be deleted from Form 41 and 23 of Gata No.953 area 0.926 Hectare.

(vi) The order dated 01.02.2016 further provides that excluding chak out land, respondent no.2/Navisan Begum would be entitled to 1/3 share, Sharif Khan would be entitled to 1/3 share and Jamman Khan & Achchaan Khan would be entitled to 1/2 share each over Gata No.1761/0.312.

(vii) Thus, it is undisputed that the original Gata of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was Gata No.953.

(viii) After the aforesaid, a reference no. 65 of 2016, under Section 48(3) of the Act of 1953, was decided by the D.D.C. concerned by a cryptic order dated 14.12.2016, which reads as under:-

(ix) From the above quoted portion, it is apparent that no opportunity was provided to respondent No.2/Navisan Begum by the D.D.C. concerned while passing the order dated 14.12.2016.

(x) Respondent No.2/Navisan Begum upon coming to know about the order dated 14.12.2016, preferred an application dated 17.12.2020 for recall of order dated 14.12.2016 and restoring the case to its original number, which is annexed as Annexure No.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 04.01.2024.

(xi) Vide order dated 05.07.2022, the restoration application of the respondent No.2/Navisan Begum dated 17.12.2020 was allowed and thereafter vide order dated 28.03.2023, the D.D.C. concerned appro