Case: U.P.State Sugar Corporation Ltd Vs. Dy.Director Of Consolidation,Meerut &amp;Ors

out in Section 198 has to be followed by the Land Management committee in making allotments of the land. 36. The procedure which has to be followed by the Land Management committee in admitting any person to land under Section 195 and 197 is set out in the Rules made under the Act. The relevant Rules are Rules 173 to 178-A. Sub-section (4) of Section 198 authorises the Collector to cancel the allotment of lease of any land made by the Land Management committee suo motu on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved by that allotment of lease. 37. In the instant case, it was found as a fact by the Consolidation Officer as also by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that part of the land in question was the land appurtenant to the staff quarter of the Sugar Mill while the other part was utilised for storage tanks for molasses and for sullage water and other purposes connected with the functioning of the Mill. Since the land in question was being utilised as land appurtenant to the Staff Quarter of the Mill from before the date of vesting, that land would not vest in the State on account of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The easement right available to the Sugar Mill in respect of the plots in question would also not stand destroyed and would continue to be enjoyed by the Mill. 38. The findings recorded concurrently by the consolidation Officer as also the Settlement Officer (consolidation) regarding the land in question being the land appurtenant to the Staff Quarter of the Mill or the land being utilised for storage of molasses and sullage water etc. have not been set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation nor has the High Court held that the findings were erroneous. That being so, the property, at no stage, vested in the State and, therefore, it could not, at any subsequent stage, vest in the Gaon Sabha. The Gaon Sabha, therefore, could not legally execute any lease in respect of these plots in favour of the respondent. 39. The High Court, without considering these questions, held that the validity of the lease, executed by the Gaon Sabha in favour of the respondent, could not be legally examined by the Consolidation Authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Reliance for this purpose was placed by the High Court on the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Similesh Kumar v. Gaon Sabha, Uskar,, Ghazipur and others, 1977 Revenue Decision 409 : AIR 1977 Allahabad 360 and Bhurey and another v. Board of Revenue, U.P. and ors, 1984 Revenue Decision 294, in which the Allahabad High Court while considering the effect of amendment introduced in Section 210 held that a trespasser over the Gaon Sabha land cannot acquire sirdari rights even if he was in possession of that land for more than 12 years. The High Court also relied upon another decision in Chatar Singh v. Sahayak Sanchalak, Chakbandi and others, 1979 A.C.J. 335, in which it was again held that even if a person was in possession over the property of the Gaon Sabha for more than 12 years, he would not acquire sirdari rights under Section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 40. In the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court, referred to above, it was held that the Consolidation Authorities have no jurisdiction to consider the question of cancellation of lease which could be considered only by regular Courts. The decision of this Court in Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh and others, (1973) 2 SCC 535 : 1974(1) SCR 339 : 1973 Revenue Decision 423, in which it was held that a void document which was liable to be ignored by the Court would not affect the jurisdiction of the consolidation Courts was distinguished. So also the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Jagarnath Shukla v. Sita Ram Pande and others, 1969 A.L.J. 768, which was affirmed by this Court in Gorakh Nath Dubes case (supra) was also distinguished. We have carefully considered these decisions and, in our opinion, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court was in error in distinguishing the decision of this Court in Gorakh Nath Dubs case (supra) which has since been followed by this Court in Dulari Devi v. Janardan Singh, 1990 Supp. SCC 216; Ashrafi Lal v. Koili, (1995)4 SCC 163 ; and Muneshwar v. Raja Mohammed Khan, (1998) 6 SCC 582. 41. The decision of this Court in Gorakh Nath Dubes case (supra) was also followed by the Allahabad High Court in Ramanand v. D.D.C. and others, 1987 Revenue Decision 430, and it was held that a document which is void and is, therefore, liable to be ignored by the Courts, would not affect the jurisdiction of the consolidation Courts and they would be within their jurisdiction in adjudicating upon that document so as to finally decide the rights of the parties. The Full Bench decision of the High Court in Similesh Kumars case (supra) was distinguished. 42. In the instant case, in view of the provisions of Section 7(aa) and Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the land in dispute, which was held by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to be the land appurtenant to the Staff Quarter of the Sugar Mill, had not vested in the State under Section 6 of the Act as a consequence of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Once these plots did not vest in the State, it would not vest in the Gaon Sabha and the Gaon Sabha had, therefore, no jurisdiction to grant lease of those plots to the respondent. Such a lease was a void document from the inception and, consequently, the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities was not affected. No other point was pressed before us. 43.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In the instant case, in view of the provisions of Section 7(aa) and Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the land in dispute, which was held by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to be the land appurtenant to the Staff Quarter of the Sugar Mill, had not vested in the State under Section 6 of the Act as a consequence of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Once these plots did not vest in the State, it would not vest in theGaon Sabha andthe Gaon Sabhano jurisdiction togrant lease of those plotsto the respondent. Such a lease was a void document from the inception and, consequently, the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities was not affected.