Shri Nehru Unchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Rasdhan Vs State of U.P.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.@mdashHeard Dr. S.B. Singh, for the petitioner and Standing Counsel, for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed against the order of District Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.10.2013, condoning the delay in filing the revision under section 48 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. Sri Nehru Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Kanpur is a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. It runs Shri Nehru Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Rasdhan, Kanpur Dehat (hereinafter referred to as the college), which is recognized under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and receiving grant-in-aid from State of U.P.

3. It is stated that consolidation in the village Rasdhan, pargana Bhognipur, district Kanpur Dehat was started some times in the year 1963. Land Management Committee of the village passed a resolution to allot plots 1187, 1196, 1265, 1288, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314 and 1315 (new plot 891) (total area 18-8-10 bigha), to the college. It was further resolved that after allotment of chaks, remaining Gaon Sabha land will also recorded in the name of the college. Land Management Committee entered into compromise before Assistant Consolidation Officer in this respect and Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 17.08.1964 directed for recording the name of the petitioner. As such, new plots 53, 179, 189, 248, 279, 361, 371, 378, 543 Ka, 655, 661, 694, 792 ka, 794, 798 ka, 891, 944, 953, 1064, 1088, 1094, 1188 kha, 1200, 1250, 1285, 1370 and 1376 (total area 85-7-12 bigha) came to be recorded in the name of the college in CH Form-45. The village was notified under section 52 of the Act on 27.12.1966. This entry is continuing.

4. One Om Prakash Mishra filed a complaint in the year 2012 against recording the name of the petitioner, over Gaon Sabha Land. Om Prakash also filed Writ Petition No. 6472 of 2012, which was disposed of by order dated 7.8.2012 with direction to the Collector to make necessary inquiry and pass suitable order. On which District Magistrate directed Tahsildar, Sikendara to hold an inquiry. An ex parte inquiry was conducted and a report dated 3.9.2012 was submitted, which was not accepted by Additional District Magistrate. Thereafter a fresh inquiry was held by joint committee of Naib Tahsildar and Consolidation Officer and another report dated 24.9.2012 was submitted in which it has been mentioned that posting of new plot 891 (area 18-8-10) has been made in CH Form-2-A but other plots mentioned in khata-1 were not posted in CH Form-2-A. Reservation/allotment of Gaon Sabha land to a private college is against the provisions of Rule 24-A(2). On the spot, building and play ground of the college is existing on plot 891. In CH Form-23 total area of 18-8-10 bigha was recorded in the name of the college but in CH Form 45, total area 85-7-12 bigha has been recorded in the college without any order of competent authority. In khata-1 name of "Shri Nehru Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Rasdhan, Prabandhak, Gram Samaj has been recorded.

5. On the aforesaid report, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikendara, Kanpur Dehat by Letter No. 932/R/Ka-Chakbandi-Janch/2012 dated 8.11.2012, directed District Government Counsel (Revenue) Kanpur Dehat to file a revision, who filed a time barred revision (registered as Revision No. 1/2012-13) before District Deputy Director of Consolidation, for deleting the entries of the name of Shri Nehru Uchchattar Madhyarnik Vidyalaya Rasdhan from Gaon Sabha land along with delay condonation application. It has been stated that reservation of land of the area of 18-8-10 bigha in favour of Shri Nehru Uchchattar Madhyarnik Vidyalaya Rasdhan, which is a private institution was against the provisions of Rule 24-A(2). Although in CH Form-23 total area of 18-8-10 bigha was recorded in the name of the college but in CH Form 45, total area 85-7-12 bigha has been recorded in the college without any order of competent authority, which is a forgery. District Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 27.11.2012 condoned the delay in filing the revision and directed for registering the revision and issued notice. The petitioner challenged the order dated 27.11.2012 in Writ-B No. 5483 of 2013, which was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 20.2.2013, on the ground that delay has been condoned without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Order of District Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 27.11.2012 was set aside and District Deputy Director of Consolidation was directed to pass fresh order, in the delay condonation application after hearing the parties.

6. Thereafter the petitioner filed his objection and counter affidavit in delay condonation application and also raised preliminary issues regarding maintainability of the revision. District Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the parties by the impugned order dated 31.10.2013 held that the revision was filed within time. He fixed a date for hearing the arguments on the preliminary issues raised by the petitioner. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

7. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Rule 111 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 provides for presenting the revision before Joint/Deputy/Assistant Director of Consolidation, nominated by Director of Consolidation U.P. for the district within 30 days of the order against which the revision has been filed. Under section 3(4-A) of the Act, the word Deputy Director of Consolidation'' has been defined. Although under section 3(4-A) Deputy Director of Consolidation includes District Deputy Director of Consolidation but under section 3(4-B) the word "District Deputy Director of Consolidation" has a definite meaning. For district Kanpur Dehat, Deputy Director of Consolidation has been appointed by State Government, as such, the Collector has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. The revision was filed against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 17.8.1964 on 27.11.2012. Notification under section 52 of the Act was issued on 27.12.1966. Since the date of order of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner is in possession over the land in dispute without any objection of Land Management Committee. Respondent-2 has illegally held that the revision was filed within time although Rule 111 prescribes 30 days limitation for filing of the revision. The order of Assistant Consolidation Officer was passed on the basis of compromise and it was well within the knowledge of Land Management Committee of the village from very beginning. There is absolutely no explanation of such a long delay of more than 46 years. In the absence of any allegations of fraud being committed, the delay was not liable to be condoned nor the revision was maintainable. He placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat, Kakran Vs. Addl. Director of Consolidation and Another, , and Surinder Kaur Crewal v. Director of Consolidation (2010) 15 SCC 461.

8. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. In the revision mainly two grounds were raised namely (i) reservation of land of the area of 18-8-10 bigha in favour of Shri Nehru Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Rasdhan, which is a private institution was against the provisions of Rule 24-A(2) under which land can only be reserved for public purposes, and (ii) although in CH Form-23 total area of 18-8-10 bigha was recorded in the name of the college but in CH Form 45, total area 85-7-12 bigha has been recorded in the name of the college without any order of competent authority, by committing forgery. Broadly the grounds are that order reserving land for the petitioner, which is a private institution is without jurisdiction and null and void and by committing forgery in CH Form 45, total area 85-7-12 bigha has been recorded in the name of the petitioner although an area of 18-8-10 bigha was reserved and recorded in the name of the college in CH Form-23. By virtue of section 29(2) of Limitation Act, 1963, sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to the consolidation proceedings also. Section 17 of Limitation Act, 1963 provides that in case of forgery, the limitation begins from the date of knowledge of the forgery. The Collector found that forgery committed in CH Form 45 was came to the knowledge of Sub-Divisional Officer for the first time on 8.11.2012 and revision was filed on 27.11.2012 as such it was well within 30 days of limitation.

9. By section 53-B of the Act, section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 has been applied, which provides that if the applicant satisfies the Court that for the sufficient cause he could not file the revision within time then it may be admitted after period of limitation. In this case the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer reserving the land in favour of the petitioner was without jurisdiction and thereafter by committing forgery in CH Form 45, total area 85-7-12 bigha has been recorded in the name of the petitioner. The forgery came to the knowledge of the authorities on 8.11.2012, which was sufficient cause to condone the delay. Full Bench of this Court in Ramakant Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P. and Others, , held that powers under section 48 of the Act can be exercised suo motu. Even if a revision has been filed by a private party after expiry of period of limitation and delay was not liable to be condoned, Deputy Director of Consolidation can exercise his powers under section 48 of the Act suo motu and can examine the legality and propriety of the order passed by the subordinate authorities. In view of Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramakant Singh''s case (supra) issue relating to delay or any other defect in revision is immaterial. As held by Division Bench of this Court in Faujdar Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, , a revision can be filed directly from order of any subordinate authority. In view of Full Bench decision of this Court dealing with the provisions of section 48 of the Act, the case law relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner has no application.

10. So far as the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner relating to jurisdiction of District Deputy Director of Consolidation in entertaining the revision is concerned, section 5(1)(a) of the Act provides that the duty of maintaining record-of-right, preparing the village map, the field book and the annual register of each village shall be performed by District Deputy. Director of Consolidation. District Deputy Director of Consolidation is the superior authority to all other consolidation authorities in district. Section 44-A specifically authorizes a superior authority to discharge function of subordinate authority. Thus there is no illegality in entertaining/deciding the revision by District Deputy Director of Consolidation. Otherwise also Deputy Director of Consolidation as defined under section 3(4-A) of the Act includes District Deputy Director of Consolidation.

11. So far as filing of the revision after notification under section 52 of the Act is concerned, section 6(c) of General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that repeal of any Act shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. Notification under section 52(1) of the Act ensue same consequences as repeal of the Act. Right to file a revision is fully covered and is saved under section 6(c) of General Clauses Act, 1897. Supreme Court in Glaxo Smith Kline PLC and Others Vs. Controller of Patents and Designs and Others, , held that a preexisting right of appeal continues to exist, by necessary implication the old law which created the right of appeal also exists to support the continuation of that right and hence the old right must govern the exercise and enforcement of that right. In the absence of, contrary intention in repealing the enactment, rights under the old statute are not destroyed. This issue has already been decided Division Benches of this Court in Gopi Singh and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, , Dilawar Singh v. Gram Samaj 1986 RD 460 (DB), Ram Bahadur v. D.D.C. and others 1974 RD 53 (DB), and Jiwa Ram and Another Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, . In view of the aforesaid discussions, order of respondent-2 does not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.