Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
AGARWALA, BEG, JJ.
Mukhtar Singh
Versus
State of U.P.
Civil Misc. Writ No. 252 of 1956
Decided On : 08-10-1956
CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT - Validity - Whether ultra vires the Constitution - Whether violative of Art. 14, 31 - Whether takes away the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court - Whether against the principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners are members of a registered co-operative society named The Goharpur Cooperative Agricultural Society Ltd. They are tenure-holders of land totalling about 100 acres. Tehsil Kairana in which the petitioners village Goharpur is situated was put under the consolidation of holdings scheme some time in the year 1955. The Asstt. Consolidation Officer prepared a statement of proposals under S. 19 of the aforesaid Act on 31-5-1955. The applicants were allowed land in each block as below Block Rental value before Consolidation. Rental value of allotted holding. Rs. as. p. Rs. as. p. A. 1103 0 5 1085 8 5 B. 218 6 1 223 8 10 Total 1321 6 6 1309 1 3 The difference of Rs. 12-5-3 represents the rateable contribution towards land reserved for objects of public utility. The petitioners objected against the proposals and the Consolidation Officer made certain alterations in the proposals by his order dated 11-7-1955. Against this order the petitioners appealed to the Settlement Officer, Muzaffarnagar, who dismissed the appeal by his order dated 23-8-1955. Against this order the petitioners went up in revision to the Assistant Director of Consolidation who dismissed the revision application by his order dated 10-12-1955.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Consolidation of Holdings Act is not ultra vires the Constitution. 2. The Act does not violate Art. 14 of the Constitution. 3. The Act does not take away the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court. 4. The Act is not against the principles of natural justice. 5. Clause (ee) of S. 14 of the Act and the rules made thereunder, under which a tenure-holder is deprived of his land for public purposes without payment of compensation are invalid as they contravene the provisions of Art. 31.
Issues: 1. Whether the Consolidation of Holdings Act is ultra vires the Constitution? 2. Whether the Act violates Art. 14 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the Act takes away the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court? 4. Whether the Act is against the principles of natural justice? 5. Whether cl. (ee) of S. 14 of the Act and the rules made thereunder are invalid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Act is not ultra vires the Constitution because it does not violate any of the accepted principles of natural justice. 2. The Act does not violate Art. 14 of the Constitution because the classification of tenure-holders where consolidation proceedings are taking place from tenure-holders who are not subjected to such proceedings is based on an intelligible differentia and the differential treatment has a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the enactment. 3. The Act does not take away the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court because the provisions do not take away the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court. All that happens is that the pending proceedings are indefinitely stayed and the decision arrived at in the consolidation proceedings is made final. The constitutional provision relating to the jurisdiction of the High Court and Supreme Court is not thereby affected. Their powers remain intact. They may not interfere with the decision arrived at in consolidation proceedings but their jurisdiction" is thereby not affected. 4. The Act is not against the principles of natural justice because no provision of the Act has been violated and no rule of natural justice has been contravened. 5. Clause (ee) of S. 14 of the Act and the rules made thereunder are invalid as they contravene the provisions of Art. 31 because they deprive a tenure-holder of his land for public purposes without payment of compensation.
Final Decision: The order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 31-5-1956 the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 11-7-1955, the order of the Settlement Officer, Muzaffarnagar, dated 23-8-1955 and the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation dated 10-12-1955 are quashed. We make no order as to costs.
AGARWALA, J. :- This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by certain tenure-holders of village Goharpur in Pargana Shamli, district Muzaffarnagar. The relief claimed in the petition is that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the orders of the Assistant Director Consolidation of Holdings, the Settlement Officer Consolidation of Holdings, and the Consolidation Officer making certain allotments of consolidated holdings in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 (Act No. V of 1954), hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation of Holdings Act.
2. The petitioners are members of a registered co-operative society named The Goharpur Cooperative Agricultural Society Ltd. They are tenure-holders of land totalling about 100 acres. Tehsil Kairana in which the petitioners village Goharpur is situated was put under the consolidation of holdings scheme some time in the year 1955. Originally the scheme affected 223 villages but later on by means of a notification dated May 23, 1955, the scheme was cancelled in respect of 14 villages and was to be put into effect in the remaining villages only including village Goharpur. The Asstt. Consolidation Officer prepared a statement of proposals under S. 19 of the aforesaid Act on 31-5-1955. The applicants were allowed land in each block as below
Block Rental value before Consolidation.
Rental value of allotted holding.
Rs. as. p. Rs. as. p.
A. 1103 0 5 1085 8 5
B. 218 6 1 223 8 10
Total 1321 6 6 1309 1 3
3. The difference of Rs. 12-5-3 represents the rateable contribution towards land reserved for objects of public utility. The petitioners objected against the proposals and the Consolidation Officer made certain alterations in the proposals by his order dated 11-7-1955. Against this order the petitioners appealed to the Settlement Officer, Muzaffarnagar, who dismissed the appeal by his order dated 23-8-1955. Against this order the petitioners went up in revision to the Assistant Director of Consolidation who dismissed the revision application by his order dated 10-12-1955.
4. The petitioners claim that all those orders should be quashed on the following grounds :-
(a) that the Consolidation of Holdings Act, is ultra vires inasmuch as (i) its procedural provisions are against the principles of natural justice, (ii) it infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art. 14, (iii) that it expropriates property without compensation and thus violates the provisions of Art. 31, and (iv) that it takes away the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court; and
(b) that tile orders passed by the officers in the course of the consolidation proceedings were against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid Act and were otherwise unjust.
5. The object of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is to allot a compact area in lieu of scattered holdings so that large scale cultivation be made possible and all its attendant advantages may accrue to tenure-holders. For instance, by the reduction of boundary lines saving of land and diminishing of boundary disputes is effected; time is saved in managing the fields; barriers such as fences, hedges or ditches can be erected to obtain privacy and prevent trespassing, thieving and gleaning; control of irrigation and drainage water can be made easier; and the control of pests, insects and disease can be made less difficult. The consolidation of holdings is intended to encourage the development of agriculture.
6. The scheme of the Act is as follows :
1. When a notification is
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
