Back
1976 Supreme(All) 434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SATISH CHANDRA, K.C. AGRAWAL, A. BANERJI, JJ.
Amir Husain and Others - Appellants
Versus
The Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 321 of 1971
Decided On : 26-04-1976
For the Appellant : Haider Husain and S.J. Hyder.
For the Respondent: S.C. and K.B. Garg.
The principle of escheat provides for the reversion of property to the State in consequence of a want of any individual competent to inherit.
Headnote:
CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS - VESTING OF LAND IN STATE GOVERNMENT OR GAON SABHA - AUTOMATIC VESTING - NO NEED FOR OBJECTION - SECTION 11C OF U.P. CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT - RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION - NOT DECIDED.
Fact of the Case:
In a consolidation proceeding, the consolidation authorities found that neither of the claimants had any right over the disputed land and directed that the land be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha. The order was upheld by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The petitioner, who was one of the claimants, filed a writ petition challenging the order on the ground that the Gaon Sabha had not filed any objection and, therefore, the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to direct that the land be entered as Gaon Sabha property.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the consolidation authorities had the jurisdiction to direct that the land be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha even though the Gaon Sabha had not filed any objection. The court reasoned that the rights of a bhumidhar would get vested in the Land Management Committee, which is the executive committee of the Gaon Sabha, in the event of the bhumidhar dying without leaving any heir who is entitled to succeed to his property. The court further held that the entry of the name of the State Government or Gaon Sabha will be made in the proceedings u/s 9 itself, hence the mandate of Section 11A would not be violated.
Issues: 1. Whether the consolidation authorities can validly direct the name of the Gaon Sabha or the State Government to be recorded when they find that there is no valid title holder and that under the law, the land had vested in the State Government and then in the Gaon Sabha; even though the Government or the Gaon Sabha has not filed an objection. 2. Whether Section 11C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act operates retrospectively so as to validate orders passed by consolidation authorities prior to the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 34 of 1974, directing the names of the Gaon Sabha or the State Government etc. to be recorded over plots which had, in law, vested in them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle of escheat, which denotes falling of an estate into the general property of the State because the owner or the tenant has died inter-state without lawful heirs to take his estate by succession or because of some other disability to take or hold the property imposed by law. The court held that the provisions of Sections 189 and 194 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which provide for the extinction of the rights of a bhumidhar and the vesting of his rights in the Land Management Committee, are based on the principle of escheat. The court further held that the consolidation authorities are required to maintain correct records of persons entitled to the land and that this purpose would be achieved more by recording the name of the State or Gaon Sabha inasmuch as according to the findings it is the State or the Gaon Sabha which is entitled to get the land.
Final Decision: The court answered the first question in the affirmative and held that the consolidation authorities can validly direct the name of the Gaon Sabha or the State Government to be recorded when they find that there is no valid title holder and that under the law, the land had vested in the State Government and then in the Gaon Sabha; even though the Government or the Gaon Sabha has not filed an objection. The court did not decide the second question on whether Section 11C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act operates retrospectively.
K.C. Agarwal, J.
This case has come up before us in a Full Bench by reason of a reference made by on of us (Satish Chandra, J.) for decision on the following two questions :
1. Whether the consolidation authorities can validly direct the name of the Gaon Sabha or the State Government to be recorded when they find that there is no valid title holder and that under the law, the land had vested in the State Government and then in the Gaon Sabha; even though the Government or the Gaon Sabha has not filed an objection.
2. Whether Section 11C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act operates retrospectively so as to validate orders passed by consolidation authorities prior to the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 34 of 1974, directing the names of the Gaon Sabha or the State Government etc. to be recorded over plots which had, in law, vested in them.
2. The facts leading to the reference are these: One Smt. Ram Kali, was, admittedly, the bhumidhar of khata No. 69 of village Sikandarpur, district Moradabad. In the basic year the aforesaid Khata was entered in the names of Har Swarup and Har Kishan as bhumidhars. It, however, contained a note to the effect that in pursuance of an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Moradabad, in Case No. 18, the names of Amir Husain and others, the Petitioners, had to be recorded as Sirdars over the land of this Khata. Har Swarup and Har Kishan filed an objection u/s 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (briefly stated as 'the Act'), claiming that having purchased the land through a registered sale deed from Smt. Ram Kali they became the bhumidhars of the disputed land and as Amir Husain, and others had no concern with the land in dispute their names could not be recorded in the revenue papers. The objection was resisted by Amir Husain and others on the ground, interalia, that they were in possession of the land in dispute since long and, therefore, by virtue of their possession they had acquired the rights of sirdars u/s 210 of UP ZA and LR Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. I of 1950), (briefly stated as U.P. Act I of 1950). The Consolidation Officer finding that neither Har Swarup nor Har Kishan nor Amir Husain had any right; over the land in dispute, directed that the land be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha concerned. The order of the Consolidation Officer was maintained by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in appeal preferred before him u/s 11 of the Act and, thereafter, in revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation filed u/s 48 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, Amir Husain filed the present writ petition in this Court.
3. The main controversy raised in the writ petition was that since the Gaon Sabha had not filed any objection, the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to direct that the land be entered as Gaon Sabha property. In support of this plea, the Petitioners placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gaon Sabha v. Noor Mohammad 1974 RD 350. Controverting the submission, counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha relied on a decision of another Division Bench decision in Gaon Sabha v. Sanman Singh 1973 AWR 596. Finding that the questions raised by the counsel for the parties were of general importance, the learned Single Judge made the present reference.
4. To understand and consider the submission made by the learned Counsel, it will be useful if we refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and their extent and scope. It will also be necessary to refer to some of the provisions of U.P. Act I of 1950 in this regard. The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was passed to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings in Uttar Pradesh for development of agriculture. It is a self contained special enactment dealing with the matters relating to consolidation. On a declaration made by the State Government by means of a notification issued u/s 4 of the Act, the consolidation authorities are empowered to enter upon and survey as well as to do
