Sheo Raj Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation — 1966 DIGILAW 412 (ALL)

JUDGMENT Nigam, J. - Sheo Raj Singh has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated October 8, 1964, July 3, 1964 and October 31, 1963 passed by opposite parties 1 to 3 i.e., the Deputy Director, Consolidation Lucknow, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Hardoi and the Consolidation Officer, Gausganj, Pargana and Tahsil Sandila, District Hardoi. 2. In the petition I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for opposite parties Nos. 5 and 6. 3. The learned counsel for opposite parties Nos. 5 and 6 has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the chaks having been finalised under Section 23 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the writ petition has become infructuous. On this point I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The petitioner states that Khata No. 77 was recorded in the names of the petitioner and opposite parties 4 to 6 as their Bhumidhari holding. The petitioner filed an objection under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood prior to its amendment by U.P. Act No. XXXVIII of 1958. In respect of 15 out of 25 plots the petitioner claimed that he was in exclusive possession. Opposite parties 4 to 6 denied this claim. There was another case between the parties as regards the partition of holdings No. 77 and 280. Both the cases were referred to the Civil Judge Hardoi and both the proceedings were consolidated after the return of the references from the court of the Civil Judge. Finally the Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the petitioner's possession and held that the petitioner was entitled only to th share in holding No. 77 and to th in two other sirdari holdings. The petitioner filed two appeals. Both these appeals were dismissed on July 3, 1964. Thereafter the petitioner filed revision applications before opposite party No. 1 which were dismissed on October 8, 1964. In fact both these revision applications were partly allowed and the share of the petitioner was held to be ?th in khata No. 77 and to be half in the sirdari khatas. I am informed that the part of this order has been quashed so far it is against the interests of Smt. Sukhrani, in another writ petition. In fact both these revision applications were partly allowed and the share of the petitioner was held to be ?th in khata No. 77 and to be half in the sirdari khatas. I am informed that the part of this order has been quashed so far it is against the interests of Smt. Sukhrani, in another writ petition. That of course has no bearing on the present writ petitions. Against these orders the petitioner has filed two writ petitions Nos. 85 of 1965 and 86 of 1965. The preliminary objection has been raised in both the writ petitions. 5. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit of opposite parties 5 and 6 it is stated that the petitioner did not prefer any objections in respect of allotment of chaks, did not obtain any stay in regard to the execution of the impugned order and the order has been given effect to in the papers. It is further stated that the chaks have been confirmed and the village has been de-notified under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of the Holdings Act. There is no challenge as' regards the fact. The only question is what is the effect of the petitioner's failure to file an objection under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the finality attaching to the confirmation under Section 23 will be subject to the orders of the Deputy Director in any revision application under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. I agree with this statement with a slight difference. If the revision application before the Deputy Director is in respect of proceedings under Section 8 to 12, the order passed in the revision application will govern those proceedings and will not affect any right that might be accorded to either party because of the proceedings under Section 20 onwards of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. But where the revision application is directed against any order passed in an objection under Section 20 or appeal therefrom, the confirmation under Section 23 will no doubt be subject to the orders massed in the revision application. I am, however, of the view that it is necessary to file a fresh objection under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act even if the objections relating to title have not been finally decided. I am, however, of the view that it is necessary to file a fresh objection under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act even if the objections relating to title have not been finally decided. This has been the view taken by a Bench of this Court in Ganga Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow and others, 1965 Revenue Decision 12. There it was stated : "The first point is that statement of proposals has been confirmed under Section 23 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and it has attained finality. Consequently, any order now made by this court will be ineffective." In the second paragraph of the same judgment it was pointed out that no provision of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act barred the filing of the objection under Section 20 simply on the ground that an objection had already been filed under Section 12. I am of opinion that the proceedings under Section 9 to 12 and the proceedings under Section 20 onwards constitute two different and independent stages in the Consolidation operations. This would also appear from the terms of Section 47 of U.P. Act VIII of 1963. The publication of statement of proposals under Section 20 marks a stage and the two different stages are dealt within clauses (i) and (ii) of subsection (1) of Section 47 of U.P. Act VIII of 1963. It therefore, appears to me that where a person after having filed an objection under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (or under Section 9) neglects to file an objection at the stage of Section 20 or the allotment of chaks, he will lose all advantage that might be secured to him by any proceeding or continuation of any proceeding under Sections 9 to 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 6. In the present case the allotment of chaks having been finalised new rights have accrued to the parties and those new rights cannot be affected by any decision in these writ petitions. The writ petitions have, therefore become infructuous. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to Kishan Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others, 1965 R.D. 298. The writ petitions have, therefore become infructuous. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to Kishan Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others, 1965 R.D. 298. This decision lays down that a revision application under Section 48 can be disposed of after confirmation of the statement of the proposals under Section 23(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is not very clear whether the revision application under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act related to the statement of proposals under Section 20 or to any proceedings under any earlier section. On a reading of the decision I am, however, inclined to the view that the case was one relating to these statement of proposals. 8. The learned counsel for opposite parties 5 and 6 has further pointed out that the case of Kishan Singh (Supra) deals with Section 23 as amended by U.P. Act XXXVIII of 1958 and because of the provisions of Act XU of 1965, we have only to concern ourselves with the provisions of Section 23 as it stood prior to its amendment by U.P. Act XXXVIII of 1958. 9. No other point has been pressed before me as regards this preliminary objection. 10. I, therefore, see no force in these writ petitions and dismiss them as infructuous. The parties will bear their own costs.