Court No. - 19 Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 71 of 2007 Petitioner :- Ram Teerath Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Faizabad And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Kapil Muni Dubey,Dhirendra Kumar Dubey Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K. Pandey,R.N.Gupta Hon'ble S.C. Chaurasia,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, Sri
Pankaj Gupta holding brief of Sri R.N.Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 3, Sri A.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 and
perused the record.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
with the prayer that a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari may be
issued quashing the impugned judgments and orders dated 03-01-2007 and
28-09-2006 passed by the opposite parties nos. 1 & 2, contained as Annexures
Nos. 1 & 2 to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the objection filed by the
petitioner against the provisional consolidation scheme was rejected vide
order dated 02-03-2005 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Bikapur and he
has not filed any appeal or revision against the said order. His contention is
that the opposite party no. 4, Ragheo Ram, had no locus-standi to file an
appeal against the said order dated 02-03-2005, because, he was not aggrieved
by the said order and the order dated 28-09-2006 passed by the appellate court
is without jurisdiction. He has further submitted that the revision preferred
against the order of the appellate court by the petitioner was dismissed
illegally and hence, the orders of the appellate court as well as revisional court
deserve to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 has submitted that it is true that
the opposite party no. 4 had not filed objection against the provisional
consolidation scheme and had filed the appeal directly. His contention is that
the petitioner should have raised the plea of jurisdiction in the appellate court
and then the matter would have been considered by the appellate court in that
light. He has further submitted that the plea of jurisdiction cannot be raised at
this stage for the first time.
From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the objection filed by the
petitioner against the provisional consolidation scheme was rejected by the
Consolidation Officer, Bikapur vide order dated 02-03-2005. It appears that
the petitioner was satisfied with the said order and had not challenged the said
order in the appellate court. The opposite party no. 4, Ragheo Ram had not
filed any objection in the court of Consolidation Officer under section 21 (1)
of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It appears that opposite party no. 4,
Ragheo Ram preferred the appeal in the court of Settlement Officer
Consolidation, Faizabad under section 21(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings
Act against the said order.
Section 21(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act may be quoted for ready
reference:-
“Any person, aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer under sub-
section(1) may, within (15) days of the date of the order, file an appeal before
the Settlement Officer,Consolidation, whose decision, shall, except as
otherwise provided by or under this Act, be final.”
Section 21(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act clearly provides that any
person aggrieved by the order of Consolidation Officer under sub-section (1)
of section 21, may file an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation
within 15 days from the date of the order. In the instant case, Ragheo Ram,
was not aggrieved by the order dated 02-03-2005 passed by the Consolidation
Officer and hence, he had no right to file an appeal against the said order
under section 21(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The Settlement Officer Consolidation had no jurisdiction to entertain the
appeal against the said order dated 02-03-2005 on behalf a person, who was
not aggrieved by the said order and hence, the order dated 28-09-2006 passed
by the learned appellate court is without jurisdiction. The revision preferred
against the order of the appellate court was also not maintainable and the
order of the revisional court is also without jurisdiction.
In the instant case, the point of jurisdiction is a pure question of law, which
can be raised at this stage, even if it was not raised earlier.
Since the orders of the appellate court as well as the revisional court are
without jurisdiction, there is no need to enter into the merits of the case and
on account of jurisdictional error, both the orders deserve to be quashed.
In view of foregoing discussions, the impugned orders dated 03-01-2007 and
28-09-2006 contained as annexure nos. 1 & 2 to the writ petition, are quashed.
However, the opposite party no. 4, Ragheo Ram is at liberty to take recourse
to any legal remedy which is available under the law.
The writ petition stands disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 8.7.2010
AKS