Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1982 DIGILAW 1170 (ALL)

Ram Dutt v. D. D. C

1982-10-12

K.M.DAYAL

body1982
JUDGMENT K.M. Dayal, J. - This writ petition has been tiled against the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act dismissing the revision of the petitioner. 2. The dispute was in respect of plots no. 746, 756 and 757. The petitioner claimed that he bad been recorded as subtenant in respect of all the three plots prior to abolition of zamindari till 1356 Fasli subsequently after the date of vesting the petitioner and his brothers became Bhumidhars of the plots no, 756 and 757 and Adhiwasi of plot no. 746. In proceedings under Chapter IX-A of the Z.A. and L.R. Act the petitioner and his brother became sirdars. Thereafter proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were drawn between the parties. Respondents were held to be in possession, it appears that there were two cases one was decided in the year 1959 and the other in the year 1963. The proceedings under Section 240-H of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act were also brought in connection with which a reference was made to the Civil Court for determining the rights of the parties as Bhumidhars. That reference was answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner in respect of plot no. 756 and 757. In respect of plot no. 746, it was held that they were not proved to be Bhumidhars. Who was Sirdar or Adhivasi was not decided. The petitioners and his brother filed a revision before this Court. In the meantime a suit for permanent injunction and possession over the disputed plots was filed That suit is still pending. In the meantime consolidation operations commenced. The suit and the revision were abated under Section 5(2) of Consolidation of Holdings Act. Thereafter the petitioner filed objections before the consolidation authorities. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has relied upon the judgment of the Civil Judge which was subject matter of revision before this Court. That revision was abated under Section 5(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. As it was abated in the finding cannot be looked into nor could it be binding upon the parties. 4. His other argument was that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were decided on 11-2-1963. Within three years of the decision suit no. That revision was abated under Section 5(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. As it was abated in the finding cannot be looked into nor could it be binding upon the parties. 4. His other argument was that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were decided on 11-2-1963. Within three years of the decision suit no. 405 of 1966 was filed on 20th January 1966. Under the circumstances the proceedings of the Section 145 (Jr.P.C. could not part away the rights of the petitioner as the same was challenged in a suit before tho Civil Court. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that there was another proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. which was decided on 19-2-1959. The claim of the petitioner became time barred after 6 years and he was not entitled to recover possession under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. From the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation it is apparent that the court below has relied upon the aforesaid judgment holding that they were not in possession in respect of plots in question and were very good evidence. No doubt it was not observed that it would operate as res judicata. Once a suit abated under Section 5 (2) of Consolidation of Holdings Act its judgment decree, or order could not affect the rights of the parties nor they were binding on the consolidation authorities The consolidation authorities were bound to decide the case on material produced before them. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also not referred to the decision under Section 145 Cr.P.C. dated 19-2-1959. Under the circumstances the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has to be set aside. 6. In the result the present petition is allowed the judgment and the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 6-3-1972 is quashed and he is directed to decide the revision objection afresh in accordance with law and as directed above. Under the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.