Blog

Case Title: Prashant Singh & ors. Etc. v. Meena & ors. Etc.

Case No: Civil Appeal Nos.8743-8744/2014

Dated on: 25 April 2024

Coram: Hon’ble JUSTICE SURYA KANT and JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

FACTS OF THE CASE

This case involves a dispute over the ownership rights of Khasra Nos. 115, 151, and 152 in the Revenue Estate of village Mustafabad, District Haridwar, Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand). The subject land was originally owned by Angat, who died leaving behind three sons: Ramji Lal, Khushi Ram, and Pyara. Pyara died without an heir, and his share devolved equally upon his two brothers, Ramji Lal and Khushi Ram. Khushi Ram also died before 1950 leaving behind his son Kalyan Singh, who succeeded his father’s share in the subject property. In the late 1950s or early 1960s, consolidation proceedings were initiated in village Mustafabad under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Ramji Lal, one of the uncles of Kalyan Singh, approached the Consolidation Officer claiming that Kalyan Singh’s whereabouts were unknown and his name should be expunged from the ownership entry in the revenue record. The Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 08.05.1960, expunging Kalyan Singh’s name from the record and declaring him civilly dead. This order was based on a report that Kalyan Singh had not been heard from for eight to ten years and had not returned to the village. Ramji Lal then claimed to be the sole owner of the entire land holding of Angat. Kalyan Singh filed Suit No. 19/1985 on 12.03.1985 before the Assistant Collector, First Class, Haridwar, seeking a declaration of his half share in the suit property. The suit was decreed in his favour, and Ramji Lal’s appeal was dismissed on 06.08.1986. Kalyan Singh then approached the Board of Revenue in a Second Appeal, which was allowed in part on 31.07.1989. The suit was remanded with a direction to adjudicate the dispute regarding Khasra No. 115 afresh after forming an issue with respect to the applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Kalyan Singh challenged this remand in the High Court. His writ petition was allowed by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 16.01.2013. Aggrieved from the judgement of the high court the appellants appealed before the supreme court.

ISSUES

• Whether the order dated May 8, 1960, passed by the Consolidation Officer, which expunged Kalyan Singh’s name from the ownership entry in the revenue record, was within the jurisdiction conferred by Section 49 of the 1953 Act.
• What kind of rights of such tenure holders can be declared or adjudicated in exercise of powers under Section 49 of the 1953 Act?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953:

• Section 9(3): This section, as it stood before the U.P. (Amendment) Act 8 of 1963, pertained to the procedure for recording and deciding claims and objections related to consolidation proceedings.
• Section 49: This section bars the jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Courts to entertain suits or proceedings concerning rights in land that is subject to consolidation proceedings. It specifies that the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders should be done in accordance with the provisions of the Act during the period of consolidation.

Section 34 of Specific Relief Act,1963: This section deals with the conditions under which a person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property can institute a declaratory suit. It mentions that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.

Article 133 of The Constitution of India: This article deals with the power of the Supreme Court to hear appeals from the High Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

The appellants argued that the order dated 08.05.1960 passed by the Consolidation Officer, expunging Kalyan Singh’s name from the record and declaring him civilly dead, was final and binding. They contended that this order effectively barred Kalyan Singh from claiming any rights in the subject land. They contended that Section 49 of the 1953 Act barred any subsequent civil suit filed by Kalyan Singh, as it precluded the jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Courts to entertain suits or proceedings related to rights in the land undergoing consolidation. Therefore, Kalyan Singh’s suit for declaration of his rights was expressly precluded by this provision and was also time-barred. The appellants argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of remand passed by the Board of Revenue for determining the legal issue of maintainability of Kalyan Singh’s suit for declaration without seeking consequential relief of possession. They contended that the Board rightly remanded the suit for determination of its maintainability, keeping in mind Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The appellants relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sita Ram vs. Chhota Bhondey & Ors., arguing that during the pendency of consolidation proceedings, the authority under the Act assumes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine all types of rights, including disputes regarding the title over the land. They contended that this precedent supported their claim that the subsequent civil suit by Kalyan Singh was barred under Section 49 of the 1953 Act. Thus, the appellants argued that the order dated 08.05.1960 was valid and binding, as it was passed in accordance with the provisions of the 1953 Act. They contended that Kalyan Singh lost his right, title, or interest in the subject land due to this order.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS

The respondents argued that Section 49 of the 1953 Act does not apply in this case. They contended that the Consolidation Officer was not competent to rob Kalyan Singh of his ancestral right as a tenure holder on the subject land. The power under Section 49 of the 1953 Act is limited to preventing fragmentation of land holdings and consolidating different parcels of land among tenure holders, but it does not enable the Consolidation Officer to take away the ownership rights of a tenure holder and declare him civilly dead as such a power is beyond the Consolidation Officer’s jurisdiction under Section 49 of the 1953 Act. The respondents argued that the definition of a “tenure holder” in Section 3(11) of the 1953 Act includes a bhumidhar with transferable or non-transferable rights, which includes Kalyan Singh as a co-owner in the subject land. The respondents argued that even if Ramji Lal was in actual physical possession of the subject land, such possession was of permissible nature, for and on behalf of all the co-owners. They contend that Kalyan Singh was already deemed to be in joint possession of the subject land in the eyes of law, hence he was not required to seek a decree of possession. The respondents argued that the High Court was correct in interfering with the Board of Revenue’s remand order, as Kalyan Singh, being a co-owner, did not need to seek consequential relief of possession. His declaratory suit was maintainable as he was already in constructive possession of the property by virtue of his co-ownership.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court herat both the sides and analysed all  the provisions involved and held that Section 49 of the 1953 Act is a provision of transitory suspension of jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Courts only during the period when consolidation proceedings are pending. It does not bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to determine the ownership rights of tenure holders and as per section 3(11) of the 1953 act Kalyan Singh was a pre-existing tenure holder and Section 49 of the 1953 Act did not come into operation in his case. The court declared the order dated May 8, 1960, by the Consolidation Officer as null and void, and without any legal effect. The court upheld Kalyan Singh’s status as a co-owner of the ancestral property, thereby affirming his legal rights and rejecting the appellants’ claims to sole ownership based on the void order. The court supported the High Court’s interference with the Board of Revenue’s remand order. It was held that Kalyan Singh did not need to seek additional relief of possession, as he was already in deemed joint possession. The court dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in them. The contempt petition was also dismissed, allowing Kalyan Singh’s legal heir to seek consequential rights in the property.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – PRATYASA MISHRA

click here to view judgement