IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) Writ Petition (M/S) No.1138 of 2006 State of Uttaranchal … Petitioner Vs. Balwant Singh & Ors. Respondents (2) Writ Petition (M/S) No.1069 of 2006 State of Uttaranchal … Petitioner Vs. Taran Kaur & Ors. Respondents (3) Writ Petition (M/S) No.1070 of 2006 State of Uttaranchal … Petitioner Vs. Livleen Kaur & Ors. Respondents (4) Writ Petition (M/S) No.1071 of 2006 State of Uttaranchal … Petitioner Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Respondents (5) Writ Petition (M/S) No.1139 of 2006 State of Uttaranchal … Petitioner Vs. Gurmukh Singh & Ors. Respondents (6) Writ Petition (M/S) No.1851 of 2006 State of Uttaranchal … Petitioner Vs. Jasvir Singh & Ors. Respondents (7) Writ Petition (M/S) No.1852 of 2006 State of Uttaranchal … Petitioner Vs. Sukhvinder Singh & Ors. Respondents Mr. Sudhir Singh, Brief Holder for the State/petitioner Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the private respondents Dated: March 11, 2011 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. The controversy to be decided in all the above-said seven writ petitions is one and the same and the impugned orders challenged in all of them also being the same, as such, all of them are being decided by this common judgment and order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 3. Writ petition no.1138/06 has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 7.1.05 passed in revision no.52/27 of 2002-03, State Vs. Balwant Singh & others, passed by respondent no.3 and the judgment and order dated 8.4.2003 passed by respondent no.4 in Consolidation Appeal No.1582, U/s 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation & Holdings Act, Balwant Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others. 4. Writ petition no.1069/06 has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 7.1.05 passed in revision no.52/26 of 2002-03, State Vs. Taran Kaur & others, passed by respondent no.3 and the judgment and order dated 8.4.2003 passed by respondent no.4 in Consolidation Appeal No.1578, U/s 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation & Holdings Act, Taran Kaur Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others. 5. Writ petition no.1070/06 has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 7.1.05 passed in revision no.52/29 of 2002-03, State Vs. Livleen Kaur & others, passed by respondent no.3 and the judgment and order dated 8.4.2003 passed by respondent no.4 in Consolidation Appeal No.1577, U/s 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation & Holdings Act, Livleen Kaur Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others. 6. Writ petition no.1071/06 has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 7.1.05 passed in revision no.52/25 of 2002-03, State Vs. Gurpreet Singh & others, passed by respondent no.3 and the judgment and order dated 8.4.2003 passed by respondent no.4 in Consolidation Appeal No.1579, U/s 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation & Holdings Act, Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others. 7. Writ petition no.1139/06 has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 7.1.05 passed in revision no.52/23 of 2002-03, State Vs. Gurmukh Singh & others, passed by respondent no.3 and the judgment and order dated 8.4.2003 passed by respondent no.4 in Consolidation Appeal No.1581, U/s 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation & Holdings Act, Gurmukh Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others. 8. Writ petition no.1851/06 has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 7.1.05 passed in revision no.52/24 of 2002-03, State Vs. Jasvir 3 Singh & others, passed by respondent no.3 and the judgment and order dated 8.4.2003 passed by respondent no.4 in Consolidation Appeal No.1568, CHAK No.939-Jasvir Singh Vs. State, U/s 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation & Holdings Act. 9. Writ petition no.1852/06 has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 7.1.05 passed in revision no.52/28 of 2002-03, State Vs. Sukhvindar Singh & others, passed by respondent no.3 and the judgment and order dated 8.4.2003 passed by respondent no.4 in Consolidation Appeal No.1580 CHAK No.1001-Sukhvindar Singh Vs. State, U/s 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation & Holdings Act. 10. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that vide order dated 24.1.97 assailed in WPMS No.1138/06, order dated 26/9/97 assailed in WPMS No.1069/06, order dated 26/9/97 assailed in WPMS No.1070/06, order dated 1/8/97 assailed in WPMS No.1071/06, order dated 28/2/97 assailed in WPMS No.1139/06, order dated 28/2/97 assailed in WPMS No.1851/06 and order dated 24.1.1997 assailed in WPMS No.1852/06, Settlement Officer (Consolidation), U.S. Nagar, decided the appeals on merits filed by the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the restoration application before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) U.S. Nagar, Camp Kashipur to recall the aforesaid orders passed in the aforesaid appeals on merits. Thereafter, the said court, vide common judgment and order dated 8.4.2003, allowed the appeals and accordingly, on restoration application, recalled its earlier orders, which were passed on merits. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 8.4.2003, the State/petitioner preferred revisions in all the above-said cases before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.S. Nagar, wherein vide order dated 11.8.2003, all the revisions were clubbed together and Revision No.52/25, State Vs. Gurprit Singh was made the leading case. Vide judgment and order dated 7.1.2005, the revisional court rejected all the revisions, having no force. Hence, the State has filed the present petitioners before this Court. 11. Vide order dated 8.4.2003, Settlement Officer (Consolidation) U.S. Nagar has recalled the earlier orders, as mentioned above, which too were passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on merits. It is pertinent to 4 mention here that the order, by which the earlier orders were passed, was wrongly been titled as Restoration Application, rather it was review application for recalling the earlier orders, which were passed on merits. It is also pertinent to mention here that the State also filed its objections against the restoration/recall application in all the appeals, wherein it was specifically pleaded that the consolidation authorities have no power to recall its own order, which was passed on merits. However, even though the said orders were recalled by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the said authority passed the impugned order dated 8.4.2003, whereby the respondents were recorded as Bhumidhar with transferable rights, instead of a Class-IV Bhumidhar, with non-transferable rights. Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), the State also preferred revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, however he too did not pay any heed towards the objections raised by the State/petitioner and rejected the revisions filed by the State vide common judgment and order dated 7.1.2005, wherein Case No.52/25 State Vs. Gurprit Singh was made the leading case. 12. Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned Brief Holder, appearing for the State/ petitioner drew attention of the Court towards a judgment rendered by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Shivraji & others Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad & others, reported in 1997(88), Revenue Decisions, Page 562, and submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgment, the authorities below have miserably failed to appreciate the fact that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had no power whatsoever to recall its earlier order passed on merits. In this context, paragraph 36 of the aforesaid judgments are quoted below: - 36. Coming to the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, it is our considered view that the consolidation authorities, particularly the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding a revision petition exercises judicial or quasi judicial power and, therefore his order is final subject to any power of appeal or revision vested in superior authority under the Act. The consolidation authorities, particularly the Deputy Director of Consolidation, is not vested with any power of review of his order and, therefore, cannot reopen any proceeding and cannot review or revise his earlier order. However, as a judicial or quasi judicial authority, he has the power to 5 correct any clerical mistake/arithmetical error, manifest error in his order in exercise of his inherent power as a tribunal. 13. In light of the above-context, it is now well settled that the consolidation authorities have no power to review its own order and therefore, cannot reopen any proceeding and cannot review or revise his earlier order, except the clerical mistake/arithmetical error, manifest error in his order. In the instant case also, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) vide order dated 8.4.2003 reviewed/recalled its earlier order, which was passed on merits and as such, the said order is totally bad and perverse in the eyes of law and is accordingly, set aside. The revisional court too did not look into this aspect and proceeded to dismiss the revisions. 14. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed on the legal ground that in view of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Shivraji (Supra), the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), had no power whatsoever to recall the earlier orders passed on merits. It is also pertinent to mention here that the order dated 8.4.2003 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on the application, titled as restoration application, whereby the earlier orders were recalled, was totally misconceived and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has committed manifest error of law in recalling the earlier orders passed by his predecessors on merits. 15. In view of what has been stated above, all the writ petitions are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders passed by the respondent no.3 in above-said revisions dated 7.1.2005 as well as the order dated 8.4.2003 passed in appeals by the respondent no.4 are set aside. However, it is clarified that the respondents will be free to assail the earlier orders passed on merit, as mentioned above, before the appropriate forum. (B.S.Verma,J.) 11.03.2011 Rdang