IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5551 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.15263 of 2007)

Rekh Pal                        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Bhram Pal & Ors.                       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By an order dated 12th March, 1971, the Consolidation  

Officer decided objections filed by different chak holders.  

In  the  process,  chak  initially  given  to  the  appellant’s  

father,  Shri  Roop  Chand,  near  his  original  plot  was  

disturbed.   He,  therefore,  challenged  the  order  of  the  

Consolidation Officer by filing an appeal under Section 11 of  

the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The  

same was allowed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation)  

Meerut vide his order dated 25th April, 1971.  The appellate  

order became subject-matter of challenge in three revisions,  

which were disposed of by Deputy Director of Consolidation,  

Meerut [for short, “Deputy Director”] by a common order dated  

5th December, 1974.  The Deputy Director changed the chak of  

the land of Shri Roop Chand with that of Karan Singh and  

others.  In his order, the Deputy Director recorded that Shri  

Roop Chand had orally agreed to take the holding as per the  

determination made by the Consolidation Officer.

...2/-

- 2 -  

Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director, Shri  

Roop Chand filed writ petition before the High Court, inter  

alia, on the ground that he had neither been served with the  

notice of revision nor he was given opportunity of hearing by  

the Deputy Director.  In the counter affidavit filed by some  

of the respondents in the writ petition, it was averred that  

Shri Roop Chand had participated in the proceeding before the  

Deputy Director and agreed to take the holding in terms of  

the order passed by the Consolidation Officer.  Shri Roop  

Chand filed rejoinder affidavit.  In Paragraph 10 thereof, he  

stated that he had never agreed to accept the chak allotted  

to him by the Consolidation Officer, against whose order,  

appeal had been filed and allowed.  He also reiterated that  

he was not served with the notice of the three revisions and  

did  not  participate  in  the  proceeding  before  the  Deputy  

Director.  In Paragraph 13, Shri Roop Chand averred that on  

4th and 5th December, 1974, he was in police custody and was  

granted  bail  on  5th December,  1974.   In  support  of  this  

assertion, he placed on record a copy of the extract received  

from R/S. Masuri, which was marked as Annexure R-1.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition by simply  

relying upon the statement contained in the order of the  

Deputy Director that Shri Roop Chand had agreed to accept the  

chak carved out at the stage of the Consolidation Officer.  

While  adverting  to  the  rejoinder  affidavit,  the  learned  

Single Judge of the High Court observed that the denial is  

not  specific  and  is  vague  and  the  Deputy  Director  has  

modified the chak of Shri Roop chand in accordance with the  

concession given by him.  The learned Single Judge did refer  

to the contents of rejoinder but observed that the same were  

not specific and vague.

...3/-

- 3 -  

From a perusal of the record, it is clear that no  

notice was served upon the appellant in either of the three  

revision petitions filed against order dated 25th April, 1971.  

No doubt, order dated 5th December, 1974, passed by the Deputy  

Director makes a mention of the presence of Shri Roop Chand  

and the alleged oral statement made by him that he would  

abide by the determination made by the Consolidation Officer,  

if  the  same  is  considered  in  the  light  of  the  assertion  

contained in the rejoinder affidavit filed by him, which have  

not  been  controverted  by  the  private  respondents,  it  is  

extremely doubtful that Shri Roop Chand was present before  

the Deputy Director on 5th December, 1974.  If notice of the  

revision petition had not been served on Shri Roop Chand, it  

is not understandable as to how he could, while in police  

custody, come to know about the date of hearing which was  

fixed as 5th December, 1974.  Therefore, we are convinced that  

the order passed by the Deputy Director was contrary to the  

rules of natural justice and the High Court committed an  

error by declining to set aside the same.

Accordingly,  the  appeal  is  allowed,  impugned  order  

passed by the Deputy Director as well as the High Court are  

set aside and the matter is remitted to be Deputy Director to  

consider  the  matter  afresh  after  giving  opportunity  of  

hearing to the parties.

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

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

New Delhi, August 17, 2009.