The amended Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act V of 1954) applies to suits for possession of land, and the provisions of the amended Section 5 are not ultra vires the State Legislature.

Headnote:
U.P. CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT - SECTION 5 - ABATEMENT OF SUITS - SUIT FOR POSSESSION OF LAND - WHETHER ABATED - U.P. ACT XXI OF 1966 - WHETHER ULTRA VIRES.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged the judgment and decree of the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed his second appeal against the decision of the trial court and the appellate court, holding that the respondent was the bhumidar of the land in dispute and that the appellant was a trespasser. The appellant argued that after the grant of special leave by the Supreme Court, the State of Uttar Pradesh had published a notification under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act V of 1954), bringing the disputed land under consolidation operation. He contended that the amended Section 5 of the Act abated all suits and proceedings pending before any court or authority, including the Supreme Court, in respect of rights or interests in the land lying in the consolidation area.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the amended Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act V of 1954) applied to the suit for possession of land instituted by the respondent, as the expression "every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land" was comprehensive enough to take in suits for possession of land. The Court further held that the provisions of the amended Section 5 were not ultra vires the State Legislature, as the State Legislature had not passed any legislation affecting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but had only made provision in respect of matters within its jurisdiction and declared that a suit instituted in a court within its area had abated.
Issues: 1. Whether the amended Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act V of 1954) applied to the suit for possession of land instituted by the respondent? 2. Whether the provisions of the amended Section 5 were ultra vires the State Legislature?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the amended Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act V of 1954) applied to the suit for possession of land instituted by the respondent, as the expression "every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land" was comprehensive enough to take in suits for possession of land. The Court reasoned that before a claim for possession is accepted, the court will have necessarily to adjudicate upon the right or interest of the plaintiff, in respect of the disputed property, taking into account the claim of the opposite party. 2. The Court held that the provisions of the amended Section 5 were not ultra vires the State Legislature, as the State Legislature had not passed any legislation affecting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but had only made provision in respect of matters within its jurisdiction and declared that a suit instituted in a court within its area had abated. The Court stated that the State Legislature has not passed any legislation affecting the jurisdiction of this Court. On the other hand, what the State Legislature has done is only to make provision in respect of matters, within its jurisdiction and to declare that a suit, instituted in a Court, within its area, has abated.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the civil miscellaneous petition and declared that Civil Appeal No. 691 of 1966 had abated under the amended Section 5 of the Act. The civil appeal was also disposed of, as having abated for the reasons given by the Court when dealing with the civil miscellaneous petition.

Judgement

VAIDIALINGAM. J. :- In Civil Appeal No 691 of 1966, the appellant, by special leave, granted by this Court, challenges the judgment and decree of the Allahabad High Court, dated April 20,. 1965, in Second Appeal No. 1602 of 1963. In Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 2631 of 1967, the appellant has prayed this Court to pass an order that Civil Appeal No 691 of l966 has abated, in view of the amended Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1953 (U P Act V of 1954) (hereinafter referred as the Act).

2. The appellant was the defendant, in a suit instituted by the respondents, under Section 209, of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950 (U P Act I of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act). The plaintiff, claiming to be a bhumidar of the land, in question, instituted the suit out of which the second appeal arose against the appellant, for recovery of possession of the property on the ground that the appellant was a trespasser and that he was not entitled to remain in possession of the property. The trial Court, as well as the Appellate Court, have held that the plaintiff was the bhumidar, and the appellant has not established his tenancy right in the property and. as such, he was neither a sirdar nor an asami. On the other hand. the findings are that the appellant is only a trespasser On these findings. the plaintiff s suit was decreed. The appellant thereupon, challenged the decision of the two subordinate Courts in second appeal, before the High Court of Allahahad. The High Court has agreed with the conclusions, arrived at by the Subordinate Courts and dismissed the second appeal. This Court on June 15, 1965 granted special leave to the appellant to appeal against the judgment of the High Court.

3. According to the appellant, after the grant of special leave. by this Court. the State of Uttar Pradesh has published in the State Gazette, a notification, dated October 22, 1965, under Section 4 of the Act. The effect of that notification is that the plots, in dispute between the parties in this litigation, and which are situated in the village of Pureon, Pargana Bayalsi, in the District of Jaunpur, have been brought under the consolidation operation, by virtue of the Act. Section 5 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment in 1966, was as follows:

5. "Effect of declaration. Upon the publication of the notification under Section 4 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 under Section 52 or sub-section (1) of Section 6, as the case may be, ensue in, the area to which the declaration relates, namely :

(a) the district or part thereof, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be under consolidation operations 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 by Consolidation, who shall maintain or prepare them, as the case may be, in the manner prescribed;

(b) (i) all proceedings for correction of the records and all suits for declaration of rights and interests over land, or for possession of land, or for partition, pending before any authority or court, whether of first instance, appeal or reference or revision, shall stand stayed, but without prejudice to the right or interests in dispute in the said proceedings or suits before the consolidation authorities under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder;

(ii) the findings of consolidation authorities in proceedings under this Act in respect of such right or interest in the land, shall be acceptable to the authority or Court before whom the proceeding or suit was pending which may, on communication thereof by the parties concerned, proceed with the proceedings or suit as the case may be.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document