IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7254 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.17352 of 2007)

Nageshwar & Anr.        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Dooiji & Anr.       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against order dated 4.7.2007 of the learned Single

Judge of Allahabad High Court, whereby he declined to interfere with order dated

22nd February, 2007 passed by the Deputy Director (Consolidation),  who dismissed

revision filed by the appellants under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings

Act, but, at the same time, set aside the orders dated 5.6.1984, 23.9.1991 and 14.3.1991

passed by the Consolidation Officer.

3. The dispute relates to plot nos.  170 and 171 situated in village Ludohi,

Pargana and Tehsil Ghosi,                District Mau, U.P.  By an order dated 5.6.1984,

the Consolidation Officer directed that the disputed plots be recorded as `abadi samil

jot’ in the names of the appellants.  Thereafter, mutation was effected in the name of

the appellants on 23.9.1991 and 14.11.1991 by expunging the existing entry of `Navin

Parti’.

...2/-

- 2 -  

4. The appeal  preferred by  respondent  no.1  against  order dated 23.9.1991

was allowed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation),  Mau,  vide his  order dated

10.8.2005.   He  set  aside  order  dated  5.6.1984  of  the  Consolidation  Officer   and

remanded the case to the concerned Officer with the direction to trace out the file of

the case and decide it on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.   

5. The  appellants  challenged  the  appellate  order  by  filing  revision  under

section 48 of the Act.  The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision

but, at the same time, set aside the orders dated 5.6.1984, 23.9.1991 and 14.11.1991

passed by the Consolidation Officer and as also the order dated 10.8.2005 passed by

the  Settlement  Officer  (Consolidation)  and  directed  that  the  disputed  land  be

recorded as `Navin Parti’.   

6. The appellants challenged that order in writ petition no. 29336/2007, which

was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.  Hence, this appeal by special leave.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. In our opinion, after having come to the conclusion that the revision filed

by the appellants did not merit acceptance, the Deputy Director (Consolidation) was

not  justified  in  setting  aside  the  orders  dated  5.6.1984,  23.9.1991  and  14.11.1991

passed  by  the  Consolidation  Officer  and  order  dated  10.8.2005  passed  by  the

Settlement  Officer  (Consolidation),  more  so,  because  those  orders  were  not  even

under challenge and, so far as the order dated 5.6.1984 is concerned, the same had

already been set aside by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation).  In any case, after

setting aside those orders, the Deputy Director (Consolidation) should have remanded

the matter to the Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision on the application

...3/-

- 3 -  

filed by  the appellants and there was  no warrant  for  issuing  a direction that  the

disputed land be recorded as `Navin Parti’.  Unfortunately, High Court ignored this

glaring infirmity in the order of the Deputy Director and dismissed the writ petition.   

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the order of the High Court

is set aside.  The direction contained in the order dated 22nd February, 2007 passed by

the Deputy Director (Consolidation), to record the disputed land as `Navin Parti’, is

set aside and the matter is remitted to the Consolidation Officer to trace out the file of

the main case and decide the same on merits, after giving opportunity of hearing to

the parties.  No costs.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, December 12, 2008.