Allowed¶27

Ram Naresh Singh and Others v. D.D.C.Faizabad and Others

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2025WRIB/388/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) Faizabad; suo motu recall and review of merits order; Section 48(3) and Section 11-C of U.P. C.H Act, 1953; no power of review conferred on DDC; reference powers confined to Consolidation Officer (C.O.) and Settlement Officer of Consolidation (SOC); notice and opportunity of hearing, principles of natural justice; Smt. Anarkali and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1997 (15) LCD 921 (Full Bench, relied on); restoration of writ petition earlier dismissed for non-prosecution on 27.05.2024 via IA/10/2024; writ allowed, impugned order dated 04.08.1997 set aside, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned DDC order set aside as patently illegal; writ petition allowed; no order as to costs. ¶27

Ram Naresh Singh and Others Vs D.D.C.Faizabad and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned DDC order set aside as patently illegal; writ petition allowed; no order as to costs.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 04.08.1997 passed by the DDC, Faizabad, suo motu invoking Section 48(3) read with Section 11-C of the U.P. C.H. Act, 1953 to recall/review its earlier order dated 21.07.1997 (by which the State's revision was dismissed on merits after hearing the parties), is sustainable in law.

¶15

Court's answer

The Deputy Director of Consolidation had no authority to review its order once the revision was decided on merits; no power of review is conferred on the DDC under the Act of 1953 (in light of the Full Bench decision in Anarkali).

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Section 48(3) of the U.P.C.H Act, 1953 does not confer power on the DDC to act suo motu to invoke a reference.

¶23

Key takeaways

The powers of reference are confined to the Consolidation Officer (C.O.) or Settlement Officer of Consolidation (SOC), who must hear the parties before referring the matter to the DDC; hence the DDC could not have invoked the powers of reference.ratio¶23
Section 11-C cannot be invoked by the DDC in the absence of any substantive power to invoke Section 48(3); the DDC's reliance on Section 11-C was apparently misplaced.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - B No. 388 of 1997, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Jaspreet Singh, J.; order date 2.1.2025) challenging the order dated 04.08.1997 of the DDC, Faizabad, whereby he suo motu invoked Section 48(3) read with Section 11-C of the U.P. C.H Act, 1953 to recall and review his own order dated 21.07.1997, which had dismissed the State respondent's revision on merits after hearing the parties. Held, allowing the writ: (i) the DDC has no authority to review or recall an order after a decision on merits, no power of review being conferred on the DDC under the Act of 1953, consistent with the Full Bench decision in Smt. Anarkali v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1997 (15) LCD 921 (relied on); (ii) Section 48(3) does not confer suo motu reference power on the DDC - such powers are confined to the C.O. or SOC, who must hear the parties before referring; (iii) Section 11-C could not be invoked absent substantive Section 48(3) power; (iv) the order was passed without notice or opportunity of hearing, violating natural justice. Impugned order set aside as patently illegal; no costs. Internal date variations ('04.07.1997'; '25.07.1997') appear as printed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:131

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 388 of 1997

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Naresh Singh And Others Respondent :- D.D.C.Faizabad And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K.Mehrotra,Mohammad Ehtesham Khan,Yogesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Tiwari,Azad Khan,Mohan Singh,R.N.Gupta,Rakesh Kumar Nayak

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri M.E. Khan learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for the State respondent and Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel for the respondent Gaon Sabha.

¶7

IA/10/2024

¶8

The instant writ petition came to be dismissed by means of the order dated 27.05.2024 for non prosecution.

¶9

The petitioners moved the instant application IA/10/2024 on 31.05.2024.

¶10

The Court has considered the said application and the grounds shown in the accompanying affidavit is sufficient, accordingly, the order dated 27.05.2024 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number.

¶11

On merits

¶12

The Court proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the parties on merit.

¶13

Under challenge is the order dated 04.08.1997 passed by DDC, Faizabad whereby it has suo motu invoked the powers under section 48(3) of the U.P. C.H Act, 1953 and it recalled and reviewed its earlier order dated 21.07.1997 whereby after hearing the respective parties, on merit, the revision preferred by the State respondent was dismissed.

¶14

The limited submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State had preferred a revision which was heard by the DDC concerned and by means of its detailed order dated 21.07.1997 the revision was dismissed on merits after hearing the parties.

¶15

It is further urged that once the said order dated 21.07.1997 had been passed on merits there was no power vested with the DDC either to have recalled or reviewed its order or to have invoked the powers suo motu under Section 48(3) of the Act, 1953.

¶16

It is urged that the manner in which the DDC has invoked the powers is contrary to the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Anarkali and others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and others; 1997 (15) LCD page 921 , wherein it has categorically been held that the DDC is not vested with powers to review its judgment.

¶17

The State and Gaon Sabha counsel have tried to support the order impugned.

¶18

The Court has heard the parties and from a perusal of the order passed by the DDC on merits of the revision dated 21.07.1997 would indicate that both the parties were heard and the order had been passed on merits. Thus there was neither any power vested to recall nor it could have reviewed the decision in light of the Full Bench decision of Anarkali (supra).

¶19

Taking note of the impugned order dated 04.08.1997, it would reveal that the DDC has categorically stated that it has suo motu invoked the powers under Section 48(3) read with Section 11-C of the Act, 1953 and thereby the order dated 21.07.1997 is being set aside.

¶20

From a perusal of the said order something which is apparent from the face of record is that once the DDC had decided the matter on merits on 25.07.1997 and even though if he had to invoke its powers atleast notice should have been issued to concerned parties and without issuing notice the said power could not have been invoked.

¶21

Taking a wholesome view of the matter this Court finds that the order dated 04.07.1997 is not sustainable for the following reasons:-

¶22

(i) The Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) had no authority to review its order after a decision on the merits of the revision was made as no power of review is conferred on the DDC under the Act of 1953.

¶23

(ii) Section 48(3) of the U.P.C.H Act, 1953 does not confer power on the DDC to act suo motu to invoke a reference. These powers are confined to the Consolidation Officer (C.O.) or Settlement Officer of Consolidation (SOC), who must hear the parties before referring the matter to the DDC. Hence, the DDC

¶24

could not have invoked the powers of reference.

¶25

(iii) Section 11-C cannot be invoked by the DDC in the absence of any substantive power to invoke Section 48(3), thus, the DDC's reliance on Section 11-C was apparently misplaced.

¶26

(iv) The order was even flawed as it was passed without issuing any notice to the concerned parties, violating principles of natural justice. The absence of providing an explicit opportunity of hearing has further compounded the error in the impugned order.

¶27

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is patently illegal and cannot be sustained and is set aside. Thus, the order impugned dated 04.07.1997 is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

Order Date :- 2.1.2025 Harshita

¶29

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Naresh Singh and Others v. D.D.C.Faizabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh Singh and Others v. D.D.C.Faizabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms. Shreya Rai Thru. Her Mother and Natural Guardian Smt. Sangeeta Rai Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Sangeeta Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ms. Shreya Rai Thru. Her Mother and Natural Guardian Smt. Sangeeta Rai vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Mewa Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Lakhraj Vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Arti Kashyap vs Shiva