Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2004 DIGILAW 483 (SC)

BECHAN PAL v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

2004-04-06

ARUN KUMAR, BRIJESH KUMAR

body2004
ORDER 1. In this appeal the order passed by the Allahabad High Court upholding the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been impugned. 2. The case of the appellants is that their father Dallu had taken the land in dispute from the zamindars in the year 1950 which is equivalent to 1357 F. An application was moved on 13-3-1950 by Dallu for the purposes of proper entries in the revenue records, to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who allowed the application and made entries in his favour. The village was notified for consolidation operations under Section 4 of the U .P. Consolidation of Holdings Act sometime in 1968. The basic year entry was in favour of the father of the appellants. 3. An objection was filed by Bansh Narain, the respondent, claiming occupancy right. It may also be pertinent to mention here that according to the respondent he had filed a suit under Sections 159/180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, on 19-8-1950, within five months of the entry made in favour of Dallu by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The said suit remained pending and ultimately abated in view of the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. By order dated 16-7-1974 the Consolidation Officer rejected the objections of the respondent Bansh Narain and maintained the entry in favour of Dallu in column 20 of the khasra. The order of the Consolidation Officer was, however, set aside in appeal by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The revision preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation upholding the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by which the objections of the respondent Bansh Narain were allowed and expunction of the entries in favour of Dallu was ordered. The High Court also maintained the orders passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and Deputy Director of Consolidation. The objection which was raised by the appellants, doubting the pendency of the suit filed by the respondent under Sections 159/180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, was repelled. 4. The High Court also maintained the orders passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and Deputy Director of Consolidation. The objection which was raised by the appellants, doubting the pendency of the suit filed by the respondent under Sections 159/180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, was repelled. 4. The only ground which has been raised on behalf of the appellants before us is that the respondent Bansh Narain and others had accepted that a final roll of compensation was prepared in their favour in ZA Form 101 and they having received the compensation, had no right left in the land and they could not maintain the objections against the basic year entry. In this connection it may be pointed out that compensation roll seems to have been prepared in 1959 and payment is said to have been made in 1966. The objections were filed by the respondent in the year 1968, on the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the U .P. Consolidation Act. 5. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Avdhesh Singh v. Bikarma.. Ahir1 and the decision of this Court in Ram Autar v. Dy. Director of Consolidation2. ) 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the plea about the maintainability of the objections of the respondent in view of proceedings under Section 240-G of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and preparation of compensation roll in ZA Form 101 had never been raised before the Consolidation Officer nor before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), in appeal. It is further submitted that some such oral submissions were made in revision before the Deputy Director 0 Consolidation. It is not denied on behalf of the appellants that no such objection was taken before the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The memo of revision filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been filed and we have checked from the same and we find that no such ground was taken even before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. From a perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation it transpires that a contention was raised that the original landholders were Ram Kirpal and others and the compensation roll was prepared in the name of Ram Kirpal, Bansh Narain and others. From a perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation it transpires that a contention was raised that the original landholders were Ram Kirpal and others and the compensation roll was prepared in the name of Ram Kirpal, Bansh Narain and others. It is observed in the order that the contention was raised on the basis of evidence produced by the revisionists that the family of Ram Kirpal and Bansh Narain was the same and it was Ram Kirpal who had made the settlement in favour of Dallu, perhaps meaning thereby that the settlement made by Ram Kirpal will bind Bansh Narain as well. Thus, from the perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation also it was not clear that a plea was raised that any compensation was received by Bansh Narain in pursuance of the compensation roll said to be prepared in ZA Form 101, therefore, he was liable to be non-suited insofar as his objection under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act is concerned. It is also not clear as to which all documents apart from ZA Form 101 were placed on the record before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The plea seems to be only to connect Bansh Narain and Ram Kirpal. Thus, virtually no such case had been placed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which is said to be made by theappellants. We have also perused the averments made in the writ petition filed in the High Court. There also, very vague reference to preparation of ZA Form 101 has been made in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the writ petition, without any clear averment of facts about receipt of compensation by Bansh Narain, or any order having been passed under Section 240-G of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the same. That being the position, the High Court has rightly said that much would not turn upon such a point raised. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Sukhram Singh v. Harbheji3 to submit that finality is about the order passed under Section 240-G of the G.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It is submitted that no such order has been brought on the record nor is it stated to have been passed. 7. It is submitted that no such order has been brought on the record nor is it stated to have been passed. 7. We feel that if the plea, as sought to be raised and argued, was to be taken it should have been taken at the proper stage before the Consolidation Authorities. But surprisingly neither before the Consolidation Officer nor in the appellate court, namely, before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), any such plea was raised nor in the memo of revision any such plea had been raised before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It appears that on the basis of ZA Form 101 it was sought to be shown that Ram Kirpal and Bansh Narain belong to the same family and the settlement entered into by Ram Kirpal was binding on Bansh Narain also. Nothing beyond the aforesaid plea seems to have been pressed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The averments made in the writ petition in the High Court are no better, but equally vague. That being the position, in our view, such an objection cannot be successfully raised at such a late stage and that too in such a vague manner. We, therefore, find that the order passed by the High Court is not liable to be interfered with. 8. In the result, we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.