Back
Allahbad High Court
SATISHCHANDRA,A.BANERJI,K.C.AGARWAL
Similesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Gaon Sabha Uskar Ghaziapur - Respondent
Decided On : 04/05/1977
CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT - SECTION 49 - U. P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT - SECTION 198 - JURISDICTION OF CONSOLIDATION AUTHORITIES - LEASE GRANTED BY LAND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE - VALIDITY - CANCELLATION - POWER OF COLLECTOR - FINALITY OF ORDER - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF RIGHTS - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the son of a soldier who died in the India-China War of 1962, was granted a lease of certain plots of land by the Gaon Sabha (village council) under Section 197 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the Act). The Sub-Divisional Officer, upon receiving a report from the Supervisor Kanungo that the lease was invalid and liable to be cancelled, initiated proceedings for cancellation. The petitioner filed an objection, and the Sub-Divisional Officer found that the lease was valid, except for one plot. The State of U. P. appealed the decision, and the petitioner filed a cross-objection. The Additional Commissioner set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and quashed the proceedings, finding that the Land Management Committee had not been impleaded. No further proceedings were taken for the cancellation of the lease. Subsequently, the village was taken for consolidation under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (the Consolidation Act). The petitioner filed an objection to the consolidation proceedings, claiming that he was entitled to mutation of his name on the basis of the lease. The Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer (Consolidation), and Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the objection, holding that the Land Management Committee did not have the authority to execute the lease and that the rules regarding priority were not followed. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the consolidation authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the power of cancellation conferred by Section 198 of the Act on the Assistant Collector, First Class, was exclusive, and that the consolidation authorities did not have the authority to go into the question of the validity of the lease granted by the Gaon Sabha under Section 197 of the Act, in the consolidation proceedings. The Court further held that the lease, which was executed by the Land Management Committee, or admission of a person as sirdar under the provisions of the Act was binding on the parties so long as it was not set aside in appropriate proceedings. The Court also held that the consolidation authorities did not have jurisdiction to decide the question of validity of the lease or allotment, as such a transaction would be voidable and would require to be avoided in appropriate proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the power of cancellation conferred by Section 198 of the Act on the Assistant Collector, First Class, was exclusive, and that the consolidation authorities did not have the authority to go into the question of the validity of the lease granted by the Gaon Sabha under Section 197 of the Act, in the consolidation proceedings? 2. Whether the lease, which was executed by the Land Management Committee, or admission of a person as sirdar under the provisions of the Act was binding on the parties so long as it was not set aside in appropriate proceedings? 3. Whether the consolidation authorities had jurisdiction to decide the question of validity of the lease or allotment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the power of cancellation conferred by Section 198 of the Act on the Assistant Collector, First Class, was exclusive, and that the consolidation authorities did not have the authority to go into the question of the validity of the lease granted by the Gaon Sabha under Section 197 of the Act, in the consolidation proceedings. The Court reasoned that the Act conferred the right on the Land Management Committee to let out the land and laid down the exhaustive machinery of cancelling the same in case it was not done in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Court further reasoned that the legislature had deliberately used the word "final" in Section 198(4) with a view to end the proceedings relating to the cancellation of lease deeds. 2. The Court held that the lease, which was executed by the Land Management Committee, or admission of a person as sirdar under the provisions of the Act was binding on the parties so long as it was not set aside in appropriate proceedings. The Court reasoned that a transaction which is voidable is valid until repudiated, and that the question of jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to adjudicate and decide the rights of the parties flowing from void and voidable documents came up for consideration by the Supreme Court in Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh (1973 RD 423). In that case, the Supreme Court held that in the case of a voidable transaction, the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to go into its validity and to hold the same inoperative so long as it has not been set aside by a competent court. 3. The Court held that the consolidation authorities did not have jurisdiction to decide the question of validity of the lease or allotment, as such a transaction would be voidable and would require to be avoided in appropriate proceedings. The Court reasoned that the consolidation authorities could not go into the question of validity of a lease or allotment on the basis of possession, but on the finding whether such an allotment had taken place in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the judgments and orders of the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), and the Deputy Director of Consolidation were quashed.
SATISH CHANDRA, J. :- I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by Hon. K. C. Agarwal, J. I entirely agree. I would, however, like to make a few observations.
2. In Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78 Hidayatullah, C. J., speaking for the Supreme Court, laid down that questions of the correctness of orders are for the decision of the authorities created by a statute, and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final, or there is an express prohibition under a particular Act.
3. The last sub-section of S. 198 of the Zamindari Abolition Act declares that the orders of the Collector are, subject to a revision under S. 333, "final". This thus bars a suit or any other proceeding in a civil court. The order passed by the Collector or an order passed by the Board of Revenue in a revision filed against the order of the Collector, if any, gains finality between the parties. These orders settle and conclude the rights of the parties. As such the rights cannot subsequently be re-opened.
4. Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act permits declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure-holders in respect of land lying in an area for which a notification has been issued under S. 4 (2). It also permits adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings. But both these matters are permitted "in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act". The section goes on to provide that the declaration or adjudication shall be made or done in accordance with the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.
5. Under section 8 the field book and the current annual register are revised and holdings are valued. Under S. 8-A the Statements of Principles are prepared, Under S. 9 the Assistant Consolidation Officer issues notice to the tenure-holder and other interested persons containing the relevant extracts from the annual register showing the rights and liabilities etc. Under sub-s. (2) of S.9 a right has been given to file an objection within 21 days of the receipt of the notice. Such objections are decided under S. 9-A by the Assistant Consolidation Officer by the process of reconciiation, and in case of dispute by the Consolidation Officer. Under sub-s. (8) of S. 9, the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation officer, acting under sub-section (2), are deemed to be a court of competent jurisdiction. Thus the Consolidation of Holdings Act provides a forum for the declaration or adjudication of rights in respect of land. It does not prescribe rights or liabilities. It postulates that the Consolidation officer shall decide the disputes with reference to existing law governing the rights of the parties. If he finds that in law the rights are already settled, he has to make a declaration to that effect, If he finds that the rights of the parties have already been adjudicated, and such adjudication has become final between them, he is bound to hold that the matter is not open for further adjudication.
6. The provisions of the Zamindari Abolition Act lay down rules for admission of persons to land vesting in the Land Management Committee, and the grounds and the period of limitation within which such grants can be challenged. It created a special authority in the shape of the Collector to adjudicate such disputes. It then provides for a finality. All this shows that in this matter the Act creates a self-contained Code creating rights and indicating the manner of settlement of disputes. No other authority has jurisdiction to re-adjudicate matters covered thereby. The consolidation authorities have to recognise and respect the action of Land Management Committee or order of the Collector or Board of Revenue, if any, They cannot go behind them.
7. AMITAV BANERJI, J.:- I have had the advantage of reading the judgments prepared by Honble K. C. Agarwal J. and Honble Satish Chandra, J. I agree with the conclusion
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
