Triloki Nath v. Ram Gopal — 1972 DIGILAW 530 (ALL)

JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - Plots No. 890, 891 and 892 situate in village Sukhmal Par Nizamabad, Tahsil Firozabad, district Agra formed the subject matter of the dispute in the present appeal. Ramgopal claims to be the transferee of these plots on the basis of various deeds dated 27-3-1951, 1-6-1951, 31-3-1956 and 24-4-1956. The case of Ramgopal is that these plots had been taken for the express purpose of running a brick kiln and for taking out the earth therefrom for the preparation of bricks in the said kiln. Admittedly, the village in question came under consolidation operations in 1963. Triloki Nath claims to be a transferee of the said plots on the basis of a sale deed dated 9-10-1963. He claimed to be in possession of the plots as Bhumidhar from the date of transfer, which according to his case was effected after obtaining the necessary permission from the consolidation authorities as required u/Sec. 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953. It appears that a civil suit was pending between the parties on the date when the village in question was notified u/s 4(2) of the said Act. This suit was filed by Ramgopal for injunction restraining Triloki Nath from interfering with his possession of the plots in suit. This suit was abated u/s 5 of the said Act. The parties filed their respective claim before the Consolidation Officer. On the date fixed for evidence between the parties before the Consolidation Officer Ramgopal moved an application to the effect that the disputed plots were not covered by the difinition of "land" as laid down in the Consolidation of Holdings Act and as such the consolidation court had no jurisdiction to proceed and to determine the title of the parties. The Consolidation Officer made a local inspection of the plots in the presence of the parties. His inspection note dated 30-7-1964 disclosed that plot Nos. 890, 891 and 892 were being used for preparing bricks for the brick kiln. There was no crop standing on the said plot. Pits had been dug in these plots. To the south of these plots was a Bhatta belonging to Sri Ramgopal and to the north a Bhatta belonging to Sri Triloki Nath. On eastern border of plot No. 892 there were some bricks lying with the mark of 'Jai Hind'. There was no crop standing on the said plot. Pits had been dug in these plots. To the south of these plots was a Bhatta belonging to Sri Ramgopal and to the north a Bhatta belonging to Sri Triloki Nath. On eastern border of plot No. 892 there were some bricks lying with the mark of 'Jai Hind'. As a result of the spot inspection referred to above, the Consolidation Officer came to the conclusion that the disputed plots were not cultivated on the spot and that there were pits more than 8 or 10 feet deep which were being used for making bricks for the brick kiln. In this view of the matter, he held that the said plots did not come within the definition of the word if 'land' as given in the. Consolidation of Holdings Apt and as such it was not within his jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties. 2. Aggrieved thereby, Triloki Nath preferred an appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Settlement Officer also made a local inspection of the spot in question. It appears that even though the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) found that the earth of the disputed plots was used for preparing bricks, yet because in his view the land could be used for cultivation purposes even though no (sic) was sown at the time of his inspection, the area in question was covered of the definition of the work 'land' as envisaged in the Consolidation of Holdings Act. In this view of the matter, he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Consolidation-Officer. A revision was filed by Sri Ramgopal before the Dy. Director (Consolidation) u/s (sic) of the Act. This revision was dismissed and the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was affirmed. 3. Sri Ramgopal filed, a writ petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court. The learned Single Judge was of the view this the plots in dispute could not be (sic) as land for the purpose of Consolidation of Holdings Act. They were being used for non-agricultural purposes at the time when the consolidation operations were in progress and the mere potentiality of the plots being used at some future date for agricultural purposes Would Act be sufficient to bring the area within the definition of land as envisaged by the Act. They were being used for non-agricultural purposes at the time when the consolidation operations were in progress and the mere potentiality of the plots being used at some future date for agricultural purposes Would Act be sufficient to bring the area within the definition of land as envisaged by the Act. The single Judge thus allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Dy. Director (Consolidation) and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). He restored the order of the Consolidation Officer. Triloki Nath thereafter filed the special appeal which is before us for decision. 4. Two main points have been urged by the counsel for the Appellant. Firstly, that the mere use of the plots in question for non-agricultural purposes would not change the character the land in question, unless a declaration u/s 143 of the ZA Act has been given. In other words, his contention is that if the holdings of a Bhumidhar is used for purposes not connected with agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry etc. the Assistant Collector suo moto or on the application being made to him has to make an enquiry thereon and if he is satisfied that it is not so used, he has to make a declaration to that effect and then demarcate such parts of the holding as is used for non-agricultural purposes. After sash demarcation, the holdings ceases to be land but unless demarcation is effected, it continues to retain its character of being the holding of a Bhumidhar. 5. The second submission triage by the learned Counsel is that u/s 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the duty of maintaining the record of rights etc. lies on the shoulder of the District Dy. Director of Consolidation and as such even though the area in question may not be covered by definition of the word 'land' yet the consolidation courts are to determine the dispute between the parties and to correct their records accordingly. We hall how consider the force of these submissions. 6. The factual possession admits of no doubt that' Ramgopal claimed to acquire title to the plots between the years 1951 to 1956 i.e. prior to the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act made in regard to village Sukhmalpur-Nizamabad, Tahsil Ferozabad, district Agra. The said Notification was made in the year 1963. 6. The factual possession admits of no doubt that' Ramgopal claimed to acquire title to the plots between the years 1951 to 1956 i.e. prior to the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act made in regard to village Sukhmalpur-Nizamabad, Tahsil Ferozabad, district Agra. The said Notification was made in the year 1963. Triloki Nath claimed to have acquired the title to the disputed land on the basis of a sale deed in his favour executed on 9-10-1963, obviously, after the commencement of the consolidation proceedings in the said village. According to the case of Ramgopal as found by the courts below, the land in dispute was being used for non-agricultural purposes i.e. for making bricks for purposes of running a brickkiln. It is, therefore, clear that at the relevant time when the consolidation proceedings commenced in the village in question, the land' in dispute was as a matter of fact being used for the preparation of' bricks. Its mud had been dug 8 to 10 feet and there were no traces of cultivation thereon. Accepting these findings of fact we have now to proceed to determine the' applicability of Consolidation of Holdings Act to the facts of the present case. 7. The Consolidation of Holdings Act has been enacted with the main object of making compact blocks of land for the benefit of the farmer. The object of the Act is to consolidate the holdings. Consolidation is defined in Section 3(2) of the Act which runs as follows: 'Consolidation' means re-arrangement of holdings in a unit amongst several tenure-holders in such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact. Section 3(4-C) defines the holding as meaning a parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure by a tenureholder singly or jointly with other tenureholders. 8. u/s 3(5) 'land' means a land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry (including pisciculture and poultry farming) and includes: (i) the site being a part of a holding, of a house or other similar structure and (ii) trees, wells and other improvements existing on the plots forming the holdings. 9. 8. u/s 3(5) 'land' means a land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry (including pisciculture and poultry farming) and includes: (i) the site being a part of a holding, of a house or other similar structure and (ii) trees, wells and other improvements existing on the plots forming the holdings. 9. From the perusal of the aforesaid definitions there can be no doubt that the provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Act, can be made applicable only to that area which is covered by the definition of the word 'land' and with respect to which a Notification may subsequently be issued u/s 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The land as defined above is narrow in its application and refers to that area alone which is used for agricultural purposes etc. If any area is used for purposes other than agriculture, horticulture etc, it would not be covered by the definition of the word land and as such the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act cannot apply to that area. Section 5(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act speaks of the consequences which would ensure on publication of Notification u/s 4(2) of the Act. Under Sub-section (C)(i) of Section 5(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, a tenure holder is forbidden from using his holding or any part thereof for purposes not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming. If the tenure holder desires to use it for non-agriculture purposes, he can only do so with the permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), that is to say that so long as the holding is utilised by a tenure holder for agricultural purposes etc. the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act would apply, but once the tenure holder decides otherwise he has got to apply to Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for obtaining his permission for the user of his holding in the manner permitted under the provisions of this Act. Once the Settlement Officer grants that permission, that area will cease to be holding within the definition of that term as laid down above. Once the Settlement Officer grants that permission, that area will cease to be holding within the definition of that term as laid down above. As soon as it ceases to be holding by virtue of its use for the purpose other than contemplated under this Act, the Settlement Officer will have no further jurisdiction to deal with that specified area which would thereafter be emanable to his jurisdiction of the Revenue or the Civil Courts as the case may be. That area in our opinion, would thence, for ward be excluded from consolidation operations. Counsel for the Applicant in support of his submission referred to above relied upon a Single Judge decision of this Court reported in Alauddin alias Makki v. Hamid Khan 1971 AWR 193 . In that case, the learned Single Judge was considering the provisions of Sec 143 of the ZA Act when a bhumidhar uses holding for the purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture etc. He has to make an application to the Assistant Collector who after making an enquiry makes a declaration to that effect. After making of the declaration, that area is demarcated. On the making of the declaration as aforesaid, the provisions of Ch. 8 of the ZA Act ceases to apply to the Bhumidhar and Under Sub-section (2) of Section 143 devolution of such land of the Bhumidhar which has been demarcated is governed by the personal law to which he is subject. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that unless the declaration has been granted by the Assistant Collector, the holding of Bhumidhar would continue to remain his holding even though a part of it is used for non-agricultural purposes. The result in effect of this decision is that even though a part of the holding of a Bhumidhar is used for non-agricultural purposes, its devolution would be governed by the provisions of the ZA Act. It is only when the declaration has been granted, as mentioned above and demarcated, that the course of the devolution is changed and the devolution of land not used for agricultural purpose is governed by the personal law to which the. Bhumidhar may be subject. The ruling relied upon by the acceptable so far as provisions of ZA Act are concerned but it cannot apply to the provisions contained in the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Bhumidhar may be subject. The ruling relied upon by the acceptable so far as provisions of ZA Act are concerned but it cannot apply to the provisions contained in the Consolidation of Holdings Act. As mentioned above the Consolidation of Holdings Act merely permits the use of a holding by tenure holder for purposes unconnected with agriculture etc. subject to permission being granted by the Settlement Officer. It may also be noted that the proviso to Section 5 also lays down that a tenure holder may continue to use his holding or any part thereof for any purpose for which it was in use prior to the date prescribed in the Notification under the said Act. Thus from a reading of this proviso also it is dear that this Act contemplates user of the holding or part thereof for purposes not connected with agriculture provided it was under such case before the notififgcation issued under Consolidation of Holdings Act or was permitted such use under the provision of the Act. In our opinion the use of the holding for purposes unconnected with agriculture whether permitted under the Act or whether commence before the enforcement of this Act, in either case that area which is put to a different use other than agriculture etc, would not be covered by the definition of the word 'land' and therefore, the provisions of this Act would not apply. In our opinion therefore, land not covered by the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act cannot be the subject matter of a dispute before the Consolidation courts and the said courts will have no jurisdiction to decide the question of title between the parties thereto. In the case before us the facts clearly demonstrate that both parties were claiming title to the disputed plots on the basis of different deeds of transfer. One party Ramgopal claimed title on the basis of deeds executed between the years 1951 and 1956 while Triloki Nath claimed title on the basis of a transfer deeds of 1963, after the publication of the Notification u/s 4(2) of the Consolidation Act with respect to the Area. In the circumstances such a dispute was not justifiable by the consolidation courts. 10. In the circumstances such a dispute was not justifiable by the consolidation courts. 10. The other submission made by the counsel for the Appellant is based upon Section 5(1)(a) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act which runs as follows: Upon the publication of the Notification...in the official gazette the consequences as hereinafter set forth shall subject to the provisions of this Act from the date specified thereunder till the publication of notification u/s 52 or Sub-section (1) of Section 6, as the case may be, ensue in the area to which the notification...relates namely: (a) "the district or part thereof, all the case may be, shall be deemed to be under consolidation and the duty of maintaining the record of rights and preparing the village map, the field book and the annual register of each village shall be performed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation who, shall maintain or prepare them, as the case may be, in the manner prescribed. 11. The contention is as mentioned above, that even though the area in dispute may not be land but still it was the duty of the Dy. Director of Consolidation under the aforesaid section to maintain the record of rights and prepare the maps and as such the consolidation courts would have jurisdiction to correct the records of rights even though the disputed area may not be land within the meaning of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. In the connection it may be noted that the dispute in the present case centres out the question of title. Both parties are claiming title in them selves on the basis of separate deed of transfer. Unless the respective rights of the parties are decided, it is not passable to correct the records of rights effectively. The question is who shall determine those rights? Correction of records could still be done subsequent to determination of these rights. It would be begging the question if we assume that as the duty of correction of record of rights has been cast upon the Dy. Director, he will also be entitled to determine the rights and title between the patties with respect to the area which is hot within his jurisdiction. It would be begging the question if we assume that as the duty of correction of record of rights has been cast upon the Dy. Director, he will also be entitled to determine the rights and title between the patties with respect to the area which is hot within his jurisdiction. If the proper forum for the determination of dispute between the parties is the revenue court or civil court, it is only after such determination has been finally effected that the record of rights could be corrected by the Dy. Director (Consolidation). 12. Section 7 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, refers to the revision of record of the village map, It lays down that with a view to facilitate the revision of record of each village or part thereof subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, the District Dy. Director of Consolidation shall before the provisional Consolidation scheme is prepared cause to be revised the village map, of each unit. Section 8 of the Act refers to field to field Partal which has to be done for the purpose of revision of the field book of the unit. It also relates to the determination of the valuation of each plot together with the trees, wells and other improvements etc. in consultation with the consolidation committee. Section 8(A) refers to the preparation of statements of principles setting forth the principles which are to be followed in carrying out the consolidation operations in the unit. These principles are to contain details of area earmarked for Abadi site and for public purposes etc. Section 9 refers to the issue of extract from the record and the publication of the record mentioned in Section 8 and 8(A) of the issue of notices for inviting objections. Section 9(a) empowers the Assistant Consolidation Officers to dispose of the cases relating to claims to land and partition of joint holdings. Section 9(b) relates to disposal of objections on the statements of principles. Section 9(c) empowers the consolidation courts to effect partition of joint holdings. Section 10 relates to the preparation of revised annual registers on the basis of the earlier orders passed Under Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of 9(a). Section 9(b) relates to disposal of objections on the statements of principles. Section 9(c) empowers the consolidation courts to effect partition of joint holdings. Section 10 relates to the preparation of revised annual registers on the basis of the earlier orders passed Under Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of 9(a). Section 11 gives the right of appeal to the party who is aggrieved by an order made u/s 9(a) and Section 11(a) bars any objection at any subsequent stage with respect to claims to land partition of joint holdings and valuation of plots towards wells etc. relating to the consolidation area which has been raised u/s 9 or which might or ought to have been raised under this section but not has been so raised. 13. It cannot be doubted that the provisions of Section 9 to Section 11 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act refer to the correction of records of rights. In our opinion the procedure prescribed thereunder can only apply provided the area which is the subject matter of dispute fulfills the requirements of the definition of the word 'land' as envisaged in the Act. We do not find anything in these sections which would empower the consolidation courts to correct their records of rights even with respect to those areas which do not come within the purview of the definition of land as contemplated by the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Needless to repeat that, the object of the Act is re-arrangement of the holding which in terms means the arrangement of the land, that is an area used for purposes of agriculture, horticulture, pisciculture etc. If the area does not come within the circumscribed limit over which the consolidation courts have been given jurisdiction to adjudicate, in our view they will have no power to adjudicate upon such claims for correction of their records. Such a correction can only be effected by consolidation courts or by District Deputy Director of Consolidation as mentioned in Section 5(a) after the rights of the parties have been decided by a competent court. Such a correction can only be effected by consolidation courts or by District Deputy Director of Consolidation as mentioned in Section 5(a) after the rights of the parties have been decided by a competent court. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to agree with the submission made by counsel for the Appellant that because a duty is cast upon the Deputy Director of Consolidation to maintain the record of rights, he should be presumed to have jurisdiction to decide disputes and questions of title with, respect to those areas which are not covered by the provisions of this Act. 14. For the reasons given above, we are in agreement with the view expressed by Hon'ble Broome, J. that as the area in question was being used for the purposes of making bricks that is for purposes unconnected with agriculture etc. such an area would not be covered by the definition of the word 'land' and hence the consolidation courts would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties in respect thereto. Merely because the area in question could on future date be used for purposes of agriculture, to our mind does not justify the application of the provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Act to land not covered by that Act. 15. It is a cardinal rule of interpretation of statutes not to import therein words which do not exist. When the meaning of words are plain and unambiguous, Courts' of law have got to construe statute in their ordinary and natural sense irrespective of the consequences which may ensue. 16. We, therefore, do not find any force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs.