Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1966 DIGILAW 109 (ALL)

Ram Pyare v. Sarjoo Deen

1966-03-01

NASIRULLAH BEG, R.N.SHARMA

body1966
JUDGMENT Nasirullah Beg, J. - This writ petition has been filed by Ram Pyarey. It arises out of proceedings under Sec. 12-B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood prior to its amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963. Act VIII of 1963 came into force on the 8th of March, 1963 and will be referred to hereinafter as the Amendment Act. The Amendment Act deleted Sec. 12-B of the Act as it stood prior to the Amendment Act. Sec. 12-B provided for partition of joint holdings and Sec. 12-C provided for appeals against the orders passed under Sec. 12-B. In the present case the facts as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner had filed an objection under Sec. 12-B that the names of opposite parties 1 to 4 were wrongly recorded. This objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on the 2nd of November, 1963. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under Sec. 12C of the Act as it stood prior to the Amendment Act. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dismissed it on the 24th of December, 1963. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated the 20th of February, 1964 on the ground that it did not lie. Aggrieved with the order dated the 20th of February, 1964 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order dated the 20th of February, 1964 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of opinion that this writ petition has no force. 3. The main question that has to be determined in this writ petition is as to whether the Act applicable to the present case would be the amended Act or the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood prior to the Amendment Act. The answer to this question will depend on the construction of Sec. 47 (1) of the Amendment Act. The answer to this question will depend on the construction of Sec. 47 (1) of the Amendment Act. The proviso appended to Sec. 47(1) applies only to cases where the revision lay under provisions of the principal Act as it stood prior to the Amendment Act, but had not been instituted before the date of the coming into force of the Amendment Act, that is, the 8th of March, 1963. In the present case, the appeal was dismissed on the 24th of December, 1963 that is, after the 8th of March, 1963. It cannot, therefore, be said in the present case that the revision lay under the principal Act as it stood prior to the Amendment Act. The proviso, therefore, would be inapplicable to the present case. 4. The next question is whether the Amendment Act would govern the present case. If the main clause governs the case, then the Act that would Ire applicable would be the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not provided enough material with a view to determine as to how far clauses (i) and (ii) of Sec. 47(1) would be attracted in the present case. In this situation this writ petition would have to be dismissed on the ground that enough material has not been brought on record for the purposes of enabling the Court to come to a correct decision. So far as we can see clause (ii) would be attracted in the present case, because the notice under Sec. 9 of the Act must have been issued before the 8th of March, 1963. This is, however, only a matter of surmise. Presuming, however, that notice under Sec. 9 was issued before the 8th of March, 1963 the Act applicable would be that Principal Act as it stood prior to the Amendment Act.Under the Act as it stood prior to the Amendment Act only the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation could be revised under Sec. 48 by the Director of Consolidation. In the present case the revision was directed not against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, but against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). In this view of the matter the revision would not be maintainable and was rightly dismissed. This writ petition has, therefore, no force. 5. We, accordingly, dismiss it with costs.