Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1967 DIGILAW 376 (ALL)

Ram Niwaz v. Dy. Director of Consolidation

1967-10-18

LAKSHMI PRASAD

body1967
ORDER Lakshmi Prasad, J. - This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. The disputed land stood recorded in the basic year in the name of the Petitioner. Opposite party No. 6, a member of Gram Sabha of village Jane, preferred an objection u/s 9 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of the disputed land alleging that it belonged to the Gram Sabha and not to the Petitioner. The Petitioner contested the objection, among other grounds, on the basis that opposite party No. 6 was not entitled to maintain such an objection on behalf or for the benefit of the Gram Sabha. The Consolidation Officer rejected the stand of the Petitioner and held that the objection preferred by opposite party No. 6 was maintainable. The Petitioner then preferred an appeal. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who disposed of the appeal upheld the contention of the Petitioner to the effect that the objection preferred by opposite party No. 6 in the circumstances enumerated above was not maintainable. Opposite party No. 6 then went in revision which was allowed by a Dy. Director who took the view that the objection was maintainable and accordingly directed the Consolidation Officer to proceed to decide the case on merits. It is in these circumstances that the present petition is instituted with a prayer that the impugned order passed by the Dy. Director, a certified copy of which is Annexure to the petition, be quashed. 2. The petition is opposed by opposite party No. 6. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The only point that calls for determination in the case is as to whether or not the objection preferred by opposite party No. 6 can, in the circumstances of the case already stated, be held to be maintainable. Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 6 has drawn my attention to the language of Section 9(2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act which in effect purports to provide for the filing of an objection by a person interested in disputing the correctness or nature of the entries in the records or in the extracts furnished therefrom. Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 6 has drawn my attention to the language of Section 9(2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act which in effect purports to provide for the filing of an objection by a person interested in disputing the correctness or nature of the entries in the records or in the extracts furnished therefrom. His argument is that having regard to the phraseology of Section 9(2), opposite party No. 6 must be held to be competent to maintain the objection which he had preferred not on behalf of the Gram Sabha but for disputing the correctness of the entry in favour of the Petitioner in so far as he being a member of the Gram Sabha cannot but be held to be a person interested in disputing the entries if he finds that the entry in the name of the Petitioner is incorrect and the property really belongs to the Gram Sabha, It is conceded by him that opposite party No. 6 merely by virtue of his being a member of the Gram Sabha is not entitled to initiate or continue a legal proceeding on behalf of the Gram Sabha. He maintains that the objection, which was preferred in the instant case by opposite party No. 6 was not preferred on behalf of the Gram Sabha by him but in his individual capacity as a person interested in the matter by virtue of his being a member of the Gram Sabha. He thus claims that the objection was, having regard to the language of Section 9(2), clearly maintainable. It is this approach which has found favour with the Dy. Director. 4. Having considered the various points urged before me as enumerated above I have come to the conclusion that the contention raised by the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 6 is not enable. It is true that the language of Section 9(2) is rather wide and entitles a person interested in disputing the correctness of a particular entry to file an objection thereunder but there is nothing in that provision of law to lay down that such a person interested in the matter can do so for the benefit of another. In the absence of any such express provision in Section 9(2) the general rule of law, i.e., no person can plead for another without authority from that other must prevail. In the absence of any such express provision in Section 9(2) the general rule of law, i.e., no person can plead for another without authority from that other must prevail. It is a basic principle of law that a person cannot initiate a legal proceeding on behalf or for the benefit of another without any authority from that other. It is nowhere suggested that the Gram Sabha had authorised opposite party No. 6 to file an objection for vindicating the title of the Gram Sabha. The relevant rules, viz. Rules 110-A and 110-AAA of the UP ZA and LR Rules and Rule 47 of the UP Panchayat Raj Rules would indicate as to who is competent to initiate legal proceedings on behalf of a Gram Sabha or a Gaon Panchayat. It shall appear therefrom that a member of the Gram Sabha or a Gaon Panchayat has no right to bring any litigation for or on behalf of the Gram Sabha or the Gaon Panchayat. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the objection preferred by opposite party No. 6 to the effect that the land entered in the name of the Petitioner really belonged to the Gram Sabha could not be held maintainable. Hence the petition must succeed. 5. In the end the petition is allowed with costs and the impugned order Annexure 2 to the petition is quashed.