Partly allowed

Ghanshyam and Another v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2023WRIB/3505/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order remanding a revision petition to the Consolidation Officer due to alleged translation errors. The Court held that the Revisional Authority had sufficient powers to decide the matter on merits to avoid prolonging litigation and set aside the remand order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 4.8.2023 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, is set-aside.

Ghanshyam and Another Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195740

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3505 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Ghanshyam And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Adya Prasad Tewari

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, Sri Amit Kumar Singh and Ms.Shweta Nishad, learned counsel for respondents.

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that essentially they are aggrieved that revision petition filed by the respondents ought to have been decided on merits by the Revisional Authority instead of remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer with certain observation that contents of alleged disputed Bainama which were in Urdu language was not properly translated; and this exercise could have been done by Deputy Director of Consolidation itself, having wide powers under Section 48 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1953').

¶8

Learned counsel for respondents have supported the argument of learned counsel for petitioners that Revisional Authority ought to have decided the case on merit instead of remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer, since it would prolong the litigation.

¶9

There is no doubt that Revisional Authority has wide powers under Section 48 (1) read with its Explanation (3), as well as under Section 44-A of Act of 1953, therefore, matter could have been decided by Revisional Authority itself, instead of remanding it to the Consolidation Officer or it could have remanded the matter to Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the Appellate Authority.

¶10

It is also well settled that order of remand may not be passed in a routine manner. However,it does not give a liberty to lower authorities to pass erroneous orders and in case there was an error on fact as well as on law, concerned authority ought to have reconsidered the case and for that Revisional Authority has ample power which cannot be disputed.

¶11

The Authorities under the Act of 1953 has certain legal obligations to decide the case in accordance with law and for that Consolidation Officer being the First Court in hierarchy has more responsibility to decide the case in accordance with law so that the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority may have a chance to consider the case on merits. Therefore, it is the duty of lower authority not to commit irregularity in a routine manner.

¶12

At this stage it has been pointed out by learned counsel for petitioners that earlier also matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer in the year 2007 and thereafter Consolidation Officer passed order on 31.1.2019 and thereafter it reached up to Revisional Authority who has passed the impugned order.

¶13

Taking note of facts referred above that the matter is old and has already been remanded once to the Consolidation Officer, therefore, I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for parties and taking note of powers of Revisional Authority as well as nature of controversy and in order not to prolong the litigation, Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have decided the matter itself having wide power. Therefore, impugned order dated 4.8.2023 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad is set-aside and it is directed to decide the Revision Petition on merits after hearing the parties in accordance with law.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.10.2023 SB

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ghanshyam and Another v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam and Another v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Lalloo Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 16 Others

Sattar Vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sajnu Vs D.D.C and Others

Rakesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Indrawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Chandrabhan Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others