Back
1980 Supreme(All) 569
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.M. SAHAI, J.
Hari Bans Bahadur - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Nos. 9034 and 10381 of 1978
Decided On : 11-01-1980
For the Appellant : Jagdish Prasad.
The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act applies only to areas to which the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act have been extended, and it cannot be applied to Municipal or local areas.
Headnote:
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act - Applicability to Municipal Area - The court considered whether the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act applies to land situated in a Municipal area or an area where the provisions of U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act have been applied. The court held that the Act applies only to areas to which the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act have been extended, and it cannot be applied to any other area, including Municipal or local areas.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions sought the quashing of Notifications issued under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on the ground that the land in dispute, situated in a Municipal area, is not covered by the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act applies only to areas to which the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act have been extended, and it cannot be applied to Municipal or local areas.
Issues: The controversy revolved around the applicability of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to land situated in Municipal areas or areas where the provisions of U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act have been applied.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Sub-section (2-A) of Section 3 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which specifies that the Act applies only to areas to which the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act have been extended.
Final Decision: Both petitions were allowed, and the Notification issued under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was quashed.
R.M. Sahai, J.
By way of these petitions quashing of Notifications issued u/s 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been sought on ground that land in dispute being situated in Municipal area, to which U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act I of 1950 does not apply, the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are inapplicable. There is no dispute on facts. But the opposite parties have attempted to save the Notification on applicability of U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The short controversy therefore, that arises for consideration, is whether U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act applies to land situated in Municipal area or to an area where local bodies Act apply and to which provisions of U.P. Urban Areas ZA and LR Act have been applied.
2. In Badri Dube v. Commissioner Varanasi Dn. Varanasi 1969 AWR 317 it was held that provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were not applicable to an area where U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act does not apply. That was a case however where provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act applied, till then, and in such an area old Tenancy Act continued and as there was no Bhumidhar or sirdar or asami therefore, provisions of U.P. Consolidation of (omission in the certified copy-Editor) Act is defined as Bhumidhar,, sirdar and asami. It has been argued that as U.P. Urban Zamindari Abolition Act is nothing but U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act both in spirit and content there was no reason to eliminate applicability of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings to an area situated in Municipality or local area.
3. The argument is no doubt attractive but Sub-section (2-A) of Section 3 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act cuts across the submission. It reads as under:
'Consolidation area' means the area, in respect of which a Notification u/s 4 has been issued, except such portions thereof to which the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 do not apply.
4. It excludes those areas from operation of Consolidation Act to which provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act I of 1951 do not apply. The exclusion is specific. In other words Consolidation Act applies only to that area to which U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act has been extended. It cannot be applied to any other area. It would be hazarding a guess that Legislature never intended to apply this Act to Municipal or local area where neither there are large holdings nor is the problem of fragmentation so acute. In any case so long Legislature does not intervene there appears to be no way out.
5. In the result, both these petitions succeed and are allowed. The Notification, dated 10th July 78, issued u/s 4(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is quashed. The Petitioner shall be entitled to costs.
