- (1.)Faced with conflicting opinion expressed by different "benches" of co-ordinate strength (All Single Judges) & Learned Single Judge referred the matter for consideration by a larger bench and the Hon"ble Chief Justice as contemplated under Rules of Court 1952 (as amended upto date) has nominated this Bench to resolve the conflict and set at rest the legal position.
(2.)Consequently the matter has come up for before this Bench for adjudication. Can a party to the Proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directly invoke " Revisional" jurisdiction of DDC U/S 48 of the Act by passing statutory remedy of Appeal under section 12 of the Act.
(3.)The pith and substance of the issue in "controversy" can be summarized, for ready reference, as follows:- Following two questions have been framed and referred by Learned Single Judge for decision:- "A. Whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation can exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 48 against the appealable order passed by the Consolidation Officer where no appeal has been filed? B. Whether the decisions of learned Single Judges in :- 1]. 1995 R.D. Page 534 Damodar Prasad vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others. 2]. 1998 (89) R.D. page 578 Santosh Kumar and others vs. U.P. Sanchalak Chakbandi, Faizabad & others. 3]. 1999 (90) R.D. page 363 Ranjeet and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Balia and others. 4]. 2000 R.D. page 608 Hari Har Ram vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia and others. 5]. Judgment dated 28.9.1999 passed in writ petition No.26527 of 1999 Rama Shanker Singh and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and another. lays down correct law or the view taken by the learned Single Judge in following cases lay down the correct law?" 1]. 1979 R.D. page 308 Ram Das and another vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others. 2]. 1982 R.D. page 78 Hori Lal vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others. 3]. 1985 All. L.J. 1343 Ram Saran Vs. Assistant Ddirector of (Consolidation) and others. 4]. 1990 R.D. page Ram Surat and others vs. Gram Sabha, Nagar, Haraiya Mirzapur and others. Facts of the Case :- A dispute arose in between one Faurjdar (the petitioner) and Smt. Prabhawati (the respondent) during consolidation operations. Matter was placed before the Consolidation Officer for decision of the dispute under section 9-A (2) of the Act. An alleged compromise purporting to be on behalf of the respective parties was presented before the Consolidation Officer, who decided the dispute vide the order dated October, 8, 1996 in terms of the said compromise. Subsequently an application dated September, 4, 1997 was filed by Smt. Prabhawati for the recall of the order dated 8.10.1996 on the ground that the order dated 8.10.1996 was obtained by playing fraud; no notice or summon of the case was served on her nor she filed any such compromise; there is no order sheet on the record which may show that any proceedings were taken out before the Consolidation Officer. She pleaded that compromise has been got verified by impersonation as she did not appear before the Court nor engaged any counsel. The allegations made in recall application were duly supported by statement on oath. The said recall application was dismissed in default by the order dated 13th of December, 1999. Smt. Prabhawati filed two revisions being revision no.812 of 2000, (annexure 9 to the writ petition) against the order dated October, 8, 1996 passed in original case No.3173 and revision No.707 of 1998 against the order dated 18.10.1996, on similar pleas. In the memo of revision she has set up plea of fraud against the present petitioner and others and pleaded that no notice or summon was served on her by the Consolidation Officer before recording the compromise nor she ever entered into any such compromise. It has been also stated that Faujdar, the petitioner has filed a belated objection before the Consolidation Officer, notice of which was not given to her. An objection was raised by the present petitioner before the respondent no.1 about maintainability of the revision on the ground that it is barred by time.