Sita Ram v. Additional Collector, Gorakhpur — 1982 DIGILAW 539 (ALL)

JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment of the revisional Court dated 2-3-1978 whereby the petitioner's claim has been negatived in the disputed land. 2. The petitioner had claimed co-tenancy right in the disputed land on the allegations that the disputed land was acquired by the father of the opposite party No. 2 Kapildeo in the present writ petition in representative capacity and the disputed property was joint family property, hence the petitioner was a co-tenure-holder. 3. The Consolidation Officer and the appellate authority gave judgments for the present petitioners' father and the revisional Court has negatived the claim of his. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court the present petitioners' father approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. During the pendency of the writ petition the present petitioners have been substituted as their father died. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the revisional Court had no jurisdiction to decide the revision petition. According to him the Additional Collector, Sri R.P. Singh, was not the Deputy Director of Consolidation contemplated by the provisions of U. P. C. H. Act, hence he had no jurisdiction to deal with the revision petition. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the revisional Court has patently earred in holding that the decision in the suit under S. 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act filed by the present petitioners' father Sita Ram would operate as res judicata against the claim of the present petitioners. Thirdly, it has been contended before me that the petitioners have acquired at least exclusive sirdari right in some of the plots and that claim has not been examined by the revisional Court, hence the impugned judgment should be quashed. 5. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are devoid of merits. According to him the revisional Court was a Deputy Director of Consolidation within the meaning of the term contemplated by the provisions of U.P.C.H. Act. hence the revisional Court was fully competent to deal with the revision petition. 6. In this connection he has brought to my notice the relevant notification and the English translation whereof reads as below : - "In pursuance of the provisions of Cl. hence the revisional Court was fully competent to deal with the revision petition. 6. In this connection he has brought to my notice the relevant notification and the English translation whereof reads as below : - "In pursuance of the provisions of Cl. (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution, the Governor is pleased to order the publication of the following English translation of notification No. 1 (3)-74/Rev. Section 8. (868). dated Nov. 23. 1974 : No. 1 (3)74/Rev. S. 8 (868). In exercise of powers under cl. (ii) S. 44 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1953 (U. P. Act No. 5 of 1954i, read with S. 21 of the U. P. General Clauses Act. 1904 (U. P. Act I of 1904), and in supersession of Government notification No. 1 (3)/67-IE, dated Jan. 29, 1968. the Governor is pleased to confer on all the Additional Collectors of all Consolidation Districts appointed and authorised to exercise powers of Collector under S. 14-A of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. 1901 (U. P. Act No. Ill of 1901). the powers of Director of Consolidation under S. 48 of the aforesaid Act." 7. He has also submitted that the claim of the present petitioners and their father stands barred by the principles of res judicata in the circumstances of the present case and the revisional Court has correctly observed in this regard. He has also submitted that the petitioners never put forward any claim with regard to the exclusive sirdari right in any of the disputed plots and since the aforesaid question involves investigation into the questions of fact it should not be entertained at this stage. 8. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner fails in view of the notification relied upon by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party mentioned above. 9. As regards the second contention the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in 1973 Rev Dec 5, Kalika v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and has contended that the decision in the suit filed by the present petitioners' father Sita Ram did not mention the issue nor it had complied with the provisions of O. 20, R. 4. Civil P. C. hence the aforesaid judgment would not operate as res judicata between the parties. Civil P. C. hence the aforesaid judgment would not operate as res judicata between the parties. O. 20. R. 4 of the Civil P. C. reads as below : - (1) Judgments of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon. (2) Judgments of other Courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reason for such decision." 10. In the present case the decision relied upon by the contesting opposite party in the suit under S. 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act filed by the present petitioners' father does give the statement of fact and has also given reasons for not accepting the claim of the plaintiff in the suit. Since the defendants in that suit had not appeared before the trial Court, no issue was framed in the circumstances of that case. The plaintiff would get decree only if the plaintiff succeeded in establishing his claim. On the materials the plaintiffs could not satisfy the Court for the claim of cotenancy, hence the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit though defendant had not appeared in the case. 11. To my mind substantial compliance of O. 20 R. 4 C.P.C. has been made in the decision in the suit under S. 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act filed by the present petitioners' father. Hence the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, because in that case the Trial Court had decreed the plaintiffs suit in the following words : - ".... Defendant absent. Service satisfactory. I grant ex parte decree to the plaintiff. Costs easy." 12. On facts the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party is inapplicable. I am not prepared to hold that the revisional Court has committed any error in holding that the petitioner's claim stood barred on the principles of res judicata as his claim was not recognised in the suit filed by the petitioner's father at the earlier occasion. 13. As regards the petitioner's claim of exclusive tenancy in some of the plots the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy me about the petitioner's claim in any specific plot. 13. As regards the petitioner's claim of exclusive tenancy in some of the plots the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy me about the petitioner's claim in any specific plot. It is also doubtful whether the petitioner had lever raised any exclusive right in any of the disputed plots. In such circumstances I am not prepared to entertain the petitioner's claim regarding exclusive right in some of the plots at this stage. 14. In the result all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner fail and the writ petition is devoid of merits hence it is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. 15. The stay order dated 4-8-81 is hereby vacated.