SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 596

1997(4) Supreme 346
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Randhir Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1097 and 1098 of 1979
Decided on 1-4-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : T.N. Singh, B.M. Sharma and S.N. Singh, Advocates.

Headnote:U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-Section 3(5)-Definition of land -Buildings occupying the land and used for commercial purposes-Not covered by Act-Appellants and respondents are holding heats in those areas-Question whether such lands vest in State on abolition of estates etc-State is not a party to these proceedings-It may be open to appellants to have their right adjudicated as ordered by High Court in an appropriate proceeding according to law. (U.P. Land Reforms Act, 1950).

       

Order

These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, made on 30.11.1977 in Special Appeal Nos. 1047 & 1048 of 1970.

2. It is not necessary to dilate upon the three-tier history of the litigation. Suffice it to state that pursuant to the remand order made by the High Court in the last instance, the Deputy Director has gone into the question whether the Settlement Officer under the Consolidation Act has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Section 3(5) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act defines "land" to mean the land held or occupied for the purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry which includes pissiculture and poultry form and also the site, being part of a holding, of a house of other similar structures.

3. In view of the above definition under Section 3(5) of the Consolidation Act, the buildings occupying the land and used for commercial purposes are not covered by the Act. Therefore, the High Court had left the dispute open for a decision by the appropriate Court.

4. It is an admitted position that the appellants and the respondents are holding heats in those areas. Under the U.P. Land Reforms Act, 1950 the question whether such lands vest in the State on abolition of the estates etc. is also a matter left open since the State is not a party to these proceedings. It may be open to the appellants to have their right adjudicated as ordered by the High Court in an appropriate proceeding according to law.

5. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Appeals accordingly dismissed.

********

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top