Skip to content


Ram Sahai and ors. Vs. Maiku and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 40 of 1962
Judge
Reported inAIR1963All421
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226; Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 - Sections 21(5) and 48
AppellantRam Sahai and ors.
RespondentMaiku and ors.
Appellant AdvocateK.S. Verma, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateJunior Standing Counsel
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....consolidation - no request made to deputy director of consolidation - order in revision eventually goes against the party and claim that the proceedings ought to have been disposed of as second appeal - held, it could not be allowed to the party to retrace its steps. - - these objections were dismissed by the consolidation officer as well as by the settlement officer (consolidation). the order of the settlement officer (consolidation), according to the statement of the learned counsel, is dated the 28th march, 1961. against the said order the petitioners filed a revision petition under section 48 of the consolidation of holdings act, a copy of which is filed as annexure 5. no date is put down in the copy filed but the learned counsel orally stated that the date of this petition was..........should not be allowed to retrace its steps if the order of such court eventually goes against that party.learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on an authority. this is, no doubt, so non-interference in such cases in writ proceedings is, however, based on the principle that relief by way of writ is discretionary, and it would not be fair to allow a party to reagitate a matter where such party itself has chosen a particular mode of relief. the party having taken the chance of getting a decision in his favour from a court of his own choice cannot be allowed to turn round and challenge his own act, if the decision of the said court happens to go against him. the view taken in this case is supported from an unreported decision.....
Judgment:
ORDER

N.U. Beg, J.

1. This is a writ petition by four petitioners. The facts as stated by their learned counsel are that these petitioners filed objections under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. These objections were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer as well as by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), according to the statement of the learned counsel, is dated the 28th March, 1961. Against the said order the petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, a copy of which is filed as Annexure 5. No date is put down in the copy filed but the learned Counsel orally stated that the date of this petition was the 26th April, 1961. The Deputy Director of Consolidation having dismissed the revision, the petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the said order.

2. The sole argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have disposed of the revision as a second appeal under Section 21 (5) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In this connection it is important to note that no request was made by the petitioner to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to convert the revision into an appeal Even the grounds of the petition are such as to indicate that the petitioner wanted to file a revision application and not a second appeal, as all the grounds relate either to the question of the want of jurisdiction or material irregularity in its exercise. Under these circumstances, I am of opinion that in writ proceedings this Court should not interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Director. Relief by way of writ is discretionary. In giving such relief the Court can take into consideration the circumstances of each particular case. Where a party has given a revision application and has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of a particular Court, and has, up to the end, insisted on seeking the remedy by way of revision, it should not be allowed to retrace its steps if the order of such Court eventually goes against that party.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on an authority. This is, no doubt, so Non-interference in such cases in writ proceedings is, however, based on the principle that relief by way of writ is discretionary, and it would not be fair to allow a party to reagitate a matter where such party itself has chosen a particular mode of relief. The party having taken the chance of getting a decision in his favour from a Court of his own choice cannot be allowed to turn round and challenge his own act, if the decision of the said Court happens to go against him. The view taken in this case is supported from an unreported decision of this Court in the case of Rameshwarv. State of Uttar Pradesh Special Appeal No. 81 of 1961, decided on the 14th November, 1961, as well as by a Bench decision in the case of Basant Singh v. Janak Singh, 1954 All LJ 198 : (AIR 1954 All 447).

3. For the above reasons I am of opinionthat this petition has no substance. I, therefore,dismiss it summarily.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //