The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Consolidation Officer's jurisdiction is limited to preventing fragmentation and consolidating land holdings of tenure holders, and Section 49 of the 1953 Act does not empower the Officer to grant ownership or take away vested title of a tenure holder.

JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, J.

1. Application (IA No. 115495/2021) for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased appellant no. 2 is allowed after condoning the delay, if any. Cause title be amended accordingly.

2. In these civil appeals the controversy revolves around the ownership rights over Khasra Nos. 115, 151 and 152, situated within the Revenue Estate of village Mustafabad, District Haridwar, Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand). It is broadly not in dispute that the subject land is an ancestral property originally owned by Angat, who died leaving behind three sons, namely, Ramji Lal, Khushi Ram and Pyara. Pyara died issue-less and his share devolved equally upon his other two brothers. Khushi Ram also seems to have died before 1950 leaving behind his son Kalyan Singh, who succeeded his father’s share in the subject property. The fact that Kalyan Singh was co-owner/co-sharer in the subject land is fortified from the entries in the revenue record, which the appellants have produced in these proceedings as well.

3. It seems that consolidation proceedings were initiated in village Mustafabad in late 50s or early 60s in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short, the “1953 Act”). Ramji Lal - one of the uncles of Kalyan Singh - approached the Consolidation Officer in the pending reference pertaining to their land under the erstwhile Section 9(3) of the 1953 Act (i.e. as it stood before the U.P. (Amendment) Act 8 of 1963), claiming that whereabouts of Kalyan Singh were unknown and hence his name may be expunged from the ownership entry of the revenue record. The Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 08.05.1960 on the basis of a report dated 17.03.1960 of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, which inter-alia claimed that Kalyan Singh – co-tenure holder had not been heard for last 8 of 10 years, he did not arrive in the village and an affidavit to this effect was filed by his uncle Ramji Lal. Since all efforts to secure service on Kalyan Singh failed, the Consolidation Officer “in the interest of correction of record” expunged the name of Kalyan Singh from the record and declared his civil death. On this premise, Ramji Lal (later on his legal representatives) started claiming to be the sole owners of the entire land holding of Angat.

4. Kalyan Singh then instituted Suit No. 19/1985 on 12.03.1985 before the Assistant Collector, First Class, Haridwar for declaration of his half share in the suit property. The suit was decreed in his favor. Ramji Lal filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 06.08.1986. Ramji Lal then approached the Board of Revenue in a Second Appeal. That appeal was allowed in part on 31.07.1989 and the suit was remanded with a direction to adjudicate the dispute regarding Khasra No. 115 afresh after forming an issue with respect to applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Kalyan Singh challenged the aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue before the High Court. His writ petition has been allowed by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 16.01.2013.

5. We have heard learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellants as well as learned senior counsel who is representing the prospective vendees in whose favour Kalyan Singh had allegedly executed an agreement to sale and a mortgage deed. The other learned counsels representing the interested parties have also been heard and the material placed on record perused.

6. The sheet anchor of Mr. S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants, is Section 49 of the 1953 Act. It is urged that the order dated 08.05.1960 passed by the Competent Authority in exercise of its powers under that provision, having attained finality, Kalyan Singh lost his right, title or interest in the subject land. It is contended that not only the subsequent suit filed by Kalyan Singh was expressly precluded under the said provision, such a suit was hopelessly time barred. It is then argued that the High Court exceeded i