Back
2013 Supreme(All) 3214
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Ram Briksha and Another - Appellant
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation, and 3 Others - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52717 of 2013
Decided On : 29-10-2013
For the Petitioner: Mrs. Sushma Devi, D.S.P. Singh
For the Respondent: C.S.C., A.P. Tiwari, S.S. Tripathi
The protection of property rights under the Constitution and the need for strict interpretation of legislation impacting co-sharers' rights.
Headnote:
Consolidation of Holdings Act - Land Dispute - Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 49
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed rights over a disputed land, arguing that the respondent's objection was barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The respondents contended that the objection was valid based on their relationship as co-sharers, citing previous court decisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the application of Section 49 of the Act, referencing previous Supreme Court judgments to support its decision. It highlighted the principles of joint property/co-sharers and the legal concept of possession, emphasizing the protection of co-sharers' rights under the Constitution.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of Section 49 of the Act, the rights of co-sharers, and the impact of state legislation on constitutional rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principles of joint property/co-sharers, the protection of property rights under the Constitution, and the need for reconsideration of state legislation in light of constitutional rights.
Final Decision: The court directed the matter to be referred to a larger Bench for consideration of key questions related to the application of Section 49 of the Act, recognizing the importance of the legal issues involved.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
1. Heard Sri D.S.P. Singh, counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.P. Tiwari, for the contesting respondent.
2. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the names of the petitioners were recorded over the land in dispute, since 1359 F. Ram Belash (respondent-4) did not file any objection, claiming his rights, in previous consolidation, as such, his objection in subsequent consolidation proceeding, claiming right in it, is barred under Section 49 of under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. The counsel for the respondent submitted that consolidation authorities held that Ram Belash (respondent-4) was the real brother of the petitioners and was co-sharer along with them as such bar contained under Section 49 of the Act would not apply, as held by this Court in Amar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (104) RD 421 .
4. Section 49 of the Act was initially enacted as follows: .-
“Section 49.-Bar to Civil Court Jurisdiction.- No person shall institute any suit or other proceeding in any Civil Court with respect to any matter arising out of consolidation proceeding or under the provision of this Act.
By U.P. Act No. 38 of 1958, Section 49 was amended as follows: -
Section 49.-Bar to Civil Court Jurisdiction.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of right of tenure holder, in respect of any land lying in any area, for which notification has been issued under sub-section (2) of section 4 or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act.
5. Section 49 of the Act bars jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Court to entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in any land lying in area, for which notification was previously issued under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act and (i) the declaration and adjudication of right of tenure holder has been done or (ii) a proceeding for declaration and adjudication of right of tenure holder could or ought to have been taken, therein. Supreme Court in Sita Ram Vs. Chhota Bhondey, AIR 1991 SC 249 , held that as Chhota Bhondey, who was claiming an interest, in the land lying in the area covered by notification issued under Section 4(2), on the basis that he is the son of Chhota, brother of Nanha and that the lands were recorded in the name of Nanha in a representative capacity on behalf of himself and his other brothers. This claim which fell within the ambit of Section 5(2) of the Act, had to be adjudicated by the consolidation authorities. Since it was a matter falling within the scope of adjudicatory functions assigned to the consolidation authorities under the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit in respect of the said matter was expressly barred by Section 49 of the Act. Similar view was again taken by Supreme Court in Narender Singh Vs. Jai Bhagwan, AIR 2005 SC 582 , in which it was held that the sons, even after becoming major and fully aware of the execution of the agreement of sale by their father, had not made any attempt to get their names jointly recorded in the revenue papers by appropriate proceedings under the Act of 1953. The sons have been brought on record of the suit only as legal representatives after the death of their father, the original defendant. Section 49 of the 1953 Act bars jurisdiction of the civil court to adjudicate upon dispute of rights and title of the sons, relating to lands included in consolidation proceedings. In this case, the sons claimed themselves as co-sharer with their father and to
