ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.
Ram Ajor and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue and Others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2688 of 2023
Decided On : 26-10-2023
Consolidation - Property Dispute - Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 4(2), 5(2), 9A(2) - The court interpreted the provisions of the Consolidation Act, emphasizing that restoration applications under CPC do not abate under Section 5(2) of the Act, allowing the restoration application to be decided on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involves property belonging to a deceased ancestor, with a partition suit decided in 1970. A restoration application was filed after consolidation operations began, leading to legal challenges regarding its abatement under the Consolidation Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the restoration application did not abate under Section 5(2) of the Consolidation Act, as it does not pertain to the declaration of rights in land, and thus the Board of Revenue's remand for a merits decision was appropriate.
Issues: Whether the restoration application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC abated due to the commencement of consolidation operations as per the Consolidation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that restoration proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 do not fall within the ambit of proceedings that abate under Section 5(2) of the Consolidation Act, allowing the restoration application to be adjudicated on its merits.
Result: The writ petition is disposed of, directing the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the restoration application on its merits.
JUDGMENT :
(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.) :
Heard, Sri Awadesh Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anshul Nigam, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds to finally decide the present Writ Petition at the admission stage itself.
3. The relevant facts in brief, as narrated by the petitioners in the writ petition, are that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 belong to the same family and the dispute is in respect of a property that belonged to Late Shiv Gulam, who was the ancestor of the petitioners and the respondent No. 2.
4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the father of the petitioners filed a partition suit bearing Suit No. 35 of 1970 (Ram Aasre and another v. Jhinnu) in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Officer, Bansi, District Basti (the then). The said Suit, on the basis of a compromise between the parties, was decided on 19.8.1970 and the decree was passed on 30.1.1971. The respondent No. 2-Rajendera alongwith two others namely Sri. Motilal and Smt. Jamuni filed an application dated 3.1.1987 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgement and decree dated 19.8.1970 and 30.1.1971 respectively; before the learned Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Bansi. The parties to the said proceeding amicably settled their dispute and accordingly moved an application dated 1.11.1995 before the aforesaid Court, inter alia, praying that the said restoration application dated 3.1.1987, filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 be dismissed as withdrawn.
5. It has been asserted on behalf of the petitioners that the Village Auraiyya Manjhriya, Tappa Gosiyari, Paragana Manghar Paschim, Tehsil Mehdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar; came under consolidation operation and Notification No. 1425/G 610/2012 under Section 4(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Consolidation Act'), was issued on 3.5.2014.
6. Further, the respondent No. 2, namely, Rajendera after a period of about 19 years, again filed an application dated 30.1.2015 under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (herein after referred to as 'Restoration Application') before the learned Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Mehdawal, Sant Kabir Nagar, inter alia, praying for setting aside of the aforesaid judgement and decree dated 19.8.1970/30.1.1971 passed in the partition Suit No. 35 of 1970 and to restore the same to its original number to be decided on merit after entertaining the objections raised by him.
7. On the aforesaid Restoration Application, the learned Sub Divisional Officer Mehdawal, vide order dated 11.2.2015 directed the Peshkar to place the same alongwith the records by fixing a date and issuing notices to the opposite parties.
8. Against the aforesaid Restoration Application, petitioners filed detailed objection dated 15.3.2018 with the prayer to dismiss the same and to maintain the judgement and decree dated 19.8.1970/30.1.1971 passed in the partition Suit No. 35 of 1970.
9. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 also filed an objection under Section 9A (2) of the Consolidation Act before the Consolidation Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar on 20.5.2016 in respect of the same dispute and on receipt of the notices the petitioners appeared on 8.11.2016 and filed a counter reply to the said objection.
10. The learned Sub Divisional Officer, Mehdawal after hearing the parties; vide order dated 25.4.2018, directed to consign the aforesaid Restoration proceeding to records as having been abated, on the ground that since the Village Auraiyya (Manjhriya), Tappa Gosiyari, Paragana Maghar Paschim, Tehsil Mehdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar, has been declared under consolidation op
Mool Chand v. Deputy Director, Consolidation
Abdul Wahid Khan v. Bhawani and others
Restoration applications under CPC do not abate under Section 5(2) of the Consolidation Act, allowing for adjudication on merits.
Restoration applications for ex-parte decrees are maintainable and do not abate under the U.P.C.H. Act, even if consolidation operations are ongoing.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that abatement under the Bihar Consolidation Act is not permanent and can be reversed upon denotification of the consolidation scheme.
The court affirmed that disputes regarding consolidation schemes must be resolved through appellate remedies, and title disputes among estate holders are to be adjudicated by civil courts, not under ....
Parties must show vested interest to contest consolidation proceedings; the Revisional Authority has the power to rectify procedural lapses under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,....
Legal proceedings initiated after the issuance of consolidation notifications are invalid under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as outlined in Section 5(2), and proper filing o....
Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot adjudicate title disputes, which are reserved for Civil Courts.
The ceiling proceedings under the Odisha Land Reforms Act do not abate due to ongoing consolidation operations under the Consolidation Act, as they are distinct matters requiring separate determinati....
The court ruled that title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided on merit, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdiction and evidence rather than relying on alleged c....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.