Case Note & Summary
This was an appeal by certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court against a division bench order dated 2-1-1978 dismissing a writ petition arising from consolidation proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The dispute concerned a holding of 38.25 acres in a village where a notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 17-5-1969. The appellants were recorded as Bhoomidars in the basic year and claimed title through purchase from Gurbux Singh and Harbhajan Singh, who had been recorded as Seerdars by an Ashudhi Tehsildar on 25-7-1957 and later obtained Bhoomidari rights under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1952, selling the land to the appellants on 1-6-1959. The Gaon Sabha filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer alleging that the appellants were wrongly recorded and that the land had vested in it as unoccupied land because the previous tenants had abandoned it. The Consolidation Officer sustained the Gaon Sabha's objection on 21-2-1970 and directed expunging of the appellants' names. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) allowed the appellants' appeal on 22-8-1970 and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision, observing that the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha because the tenants had abandoned it without creating any rights. On remand, the Consolidation Officer again allowed the Gaon Sabha's objection on 31-1-1971, and the Settlement Officer dismissed the appellants' appeal on 20-3-1976. The appellants filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act before the Assistant Director (Consolidation), arguing that the finding of abandonment was based on no evidence, but the Assistant Director dismissed the revision without entertaining that plea on the ground that the remand order had not been independently challenged. The High Court upheld this view, holding that the remand order had become final. The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether an intermediate remand order containing findings could be re-examined in revisional jurisdiction when not separately challenged. The appellants relied on Jasraj Inder Singh v. Hemraj Multanchand and Smt. Sukhrani v. Hari Shanker, which established that an order passed at an intermediate stage of the same litigation has only provisional finality and does not prevent a higher court from considering the matter again at a later stage. The Supreme Court accepted this position, holding that the Assistant Director (Consolidation), while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 48, had the entire matter before him, had unfettered jurisdiction, and possessed suo moto power to correct any order of a subordinate officer. The Court observed that the Assistant Director should not have felt fettered in doing complete justice and should have examined the correctness of the remand findings regarding abandonment of land by previous tenants recorded in the Khasra of 1359 Fasli. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court, and remitted the matter back to the Assistant Director (Consolidation) for fresh decision of the entire matter in accordance with law, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Finality of Intermediate Orders - An order of remand with findings has only provisional finality and does not preclude a higher court from re-examining the matter at a later stage of the same litigation - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Sections 11, 105 - The High Court held that the unchallenged remand order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) became final and could not be corrected in revision, but the Supreme Court relied on Jasraj Inder Singh v. Hemraj Multanchand and Smt. Sukhrani v. Hari Shanker to hold that findings at an intermediate stage do not prevent examination of the position of law by a superior court when the entire subject matter is available for adjudication. Held that the remand order did not preclude the revisional authority from considering its correctness (Paras Not mentioned). B) Consolidation Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - The Assistant Director (Consolidation) has unfettered revisional jurisdiction to examine findings in subordinate orders even if not separately challenged - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Section 48 - The Assistant Director (Consolidation) had the entire matter before him and possessed suo moto power to correct any order of a subordinate officer; he should not have felt fettered in doing complete justice between the parties. Held that the appeal was allowed, the impugned orders of the High Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Assistant Director (Consolidation) for fresh decision of the entire matter in accordance with law (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an order of remand containing findings recorded by an intermediate court during consolidation proceedings is final and binding if not independently challenged; whether the Assistant Director (Consolidation) in revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act could examine findings contained in an unchallenged remand order
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court, and remitted the matter back to the Assistant Director (Consolidation) for fresh decision of the entire matter in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Intermediate orders in the same litigation have only provisional finality
- a higher court is not precluded from reconsidering a matter at a later stage of the same litigation when the entire matter is before it
- the revisional authority under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has unfettered jurisdiction and suo moto power to correct any order of a subordinate officer
- an unchallenged remand order does not bar examination of its findings in revisional jurisdiction
