Allowed

Ram Devi and 3 Others v. Zila Adhikari Banda and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2021WRIB/308/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition held that a direction by the District Director of Consolidation for on-site inspection and evidence hearing in a revision was beyond jurisdiction. The order directing this was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order directing revisional court to conduct on-site inspection, permit evidence and hear parties on merits set aside.

Ram Devi and 3 Others Vs Zila Adhikari Banda and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 308 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Devi And 3 Others Respondent :- Zila Adhikari Banda And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivakant Singh,Ram Swaroop (Singh) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By the impugned order dated 15.01.2021, the respondent No.1-District Director of Consolidation, Banda while rejecting the transfer application submitted by the respondent No.2 has directed that the Deputy Director of Consolidation to ensure an on site inspection, and to permit the parties to introduce evidence, and decide the revision after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶6

It is contended by Sri Ram Swaroop Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners that insofar as the latter part of the order passed by the respondent No.1-District Director of Consolidation, Banda is without jurisdiction.

¶7

Sri Ram Swaroop Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the law laid down by this Court in Tufani Singh Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation, U.P. and others , reported at 2013 (119) RD 34 .

¶8

There is merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶9

This Court in Tufani Singh (supra) while considering the scope of the powers under Section 65(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 to transfer cases held as under:

¶10

"4. I find substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Before the Joint Director of Consolidation, the transfer application was pending, filed under Section 65(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 65 (2) of the Rules reads as under:

¶11

" 65 (2) The Director of Consolidation may withdraw any case from the file of any Settlement Officer, Consolidation, and refer the same to any other Settlement Officer, Consolidation for disposal."

¶12

From the perusal of the aforesaid rule, it transpires, that the Joint Director of Consolidation has been conferred with the power to withdraw a case from the Court of one Settlement Officer, Consolidation and to refer the same to another Settlement Officer, Consolidation, meaning thereby he has been empowered to transfer the cases from the Court of one Settlement Officer, Consolidation to another Settlement Officer, Consolidation and not beyond that.

¶13

Here, in this case, the Joint Director of Consolidation while rejecting the transfer application, has passed the following order: " अततसथथनथनतरणपथथरनथपतननरसतनकयथजथतथहह I बनददबसतअधधकथरर चकबनदर , वथरथणसरकदननदरनशतनकयथजथतथहहनकउकअपरलकदददनन पकनकदससनवथईकथसमसनचतअवसरपदथनकरततहहएननयमथन स थरअपरल कथननसतथरणगसणददषकतआधथरपरकरनथससननशशचतकररआदतशकक पनतधलनपबनददबसतअधधकथररचकबनदर, वथरथणसरकदआवशयककथयरवथहर ह त सपतनषतककजथए I पतथवलरबथदआवशयककथयरवथहरदथधखलदफतरहद I

¶14

From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it transpires that it is contained in two parts. One part is related with the rejection of the transfer application, and another part contains the direction of the Joint Director of Consolidation to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to decide the appeal on merit, after hearing both the

¶15

parties. The second part of the order, in my considered opinion, is without jurisdiction, as the Joint Director of Consolidation cannot travel beyond the scope of Rule 65 (2) of the Rules, which only confers the jurisdiction to transfer the appeal from the Court of one Settlement Officer, Consolidation to another Settlement Officer, Consolidation.

¶16

It is well-settled that jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and any order passed without jurisdiction is nullity. It is also well-settled that the jurisdiction can neither be assumed nor presumed, nor conferred or acquired by acquiescence of parties. "

¶17

The judgement of this Court in Tufani Singh (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case.

¶18

The impugned order dated 15.01.2021 only insofar as it directs the revisional court to cause an on site inspection to be conducted, to permit the parties to adduce evidence and to hear the parties on merits is set aside.

¶19

It is open to the respondents No.2, 3 and 4 to make the requisite applications regarding on site inspection, introduction of evidence before the competent court.

¶20

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶21

Order Date :- 12.2.2021

¶22

Ashish Tripathi

Ram Devi and 3 Others v. Zila Adhikari Banda and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Devi and 3 Others v. Zila Adhikari Banda and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jalil Ahmad Vs the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Another

Ram Swaroop Vs D.D.C. and Others

Namita Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Triveni and Another Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Kushal Pal Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Ram Dayal and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others