Court No. - 21

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1337 of 2021

Petitioner :- Dipwan And Another

Respondent :- Collector And 5 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Adya Prasad Tewari

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arvind Kumar

Srivastava,Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.

Heard Shri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the

petitioners, Shri V.R.P. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents

no. 2 to 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.

1 & 6, at the admission stage.

This writ petition has been filed by the present petitioners

challenging the order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the

Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity D.D.C.),

Maharajganj (respondent no.1).

Grievance of the petitioners is that respondent no. 1 has

illegally dismissed the revision on the ground of alternative

remedy of filing an appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P.

Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity U.P.C.H. Act)

and direct revision under Section 48 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act

against the order of Consolidation Officer is not maintainable.

Present writ petition is arising out the proceeding under Section

9-A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. Perusal of the record reveals that

initially, proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act

was travelled up to the stage of Settlement Officer of

Consolidation (in brevity S.O.C.) who has remitted the matter

before the Consolidation Officer to decide the right and title of

the parties afresh. After remand, Consolidation Officer has

passed an order dated 04.12.2019 which was directly

challenged in revision under Section 48(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act

filed by the present petitioners. Aforesaid revision was

dismissed by the D.D.C. citing reasons that the order passed by

the Consolidation Officer is appealable under Section 11(1) of

the U.P.C.H. Act before the S.O.C. and consequently, directly

filing a revision under Section 48 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act is not

maintainable in the eyes of law.

Looking into the matter of dispute and the facts of the present

case, question involve in the present petition lies in a very

narrow compass, as to whether revision under Section 48(1) of

the U.P.C.H. Act filed by the petitioners against the order

passed by the Consolidation Officer is maintainable or not.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contention,

has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in

the case of Faujdar vs. D.D.C. & Others reported in 2006

(100) RD 462, and submits that direct revision filed against the

order of the Consolidation Officer is maintainable in the eyes of

law.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has fairly

conceded that in view of the order passed in the case of Faujdar

vs. D.D.C. (Supra), as cited by the learned counsel for the

petitioners, revision is maintainable before the D.D.C.

Record further reveals that against the order dated 04.12.2019

passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No.144 under

Section 9-A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, present petitioners have

preferred a revision dated 06.12.2019 under Section 48(1) of

the U.P.C.H. Act before the D.D.C., who has dismissed the

revision on the ground of alternative remedy of filing an appeal

under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act.

In the case of Faujdar vs. D.D.C. (supra), a Division Bench of

this Court has expounded that the D.D.C., in its supervisory

jurisdiction, can examine the legality, propriety and correctness

of any order passed, or the proceeding initiated by the

subordinate authority, therefore, he can directly entertain the

revision against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer

as defined under Explanation 1to Section 48 of the U.P.C.H.

Act. In the aforesaid Division Bench, question was referred to

consider the jurisdiction of the D.D.C. to entertain revision

directly against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer.

This question was replied in affirmat