Case: Agricultural &amp; Industrial Syndicate Ltd Vs. State Of U.P. And Others

to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under the Consolidation Act. So the limited question to be considered is whether the proceeding in the present case is one "in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area."8. When a tenure-holder voluntarily files a statement of his holdings under S. 9, the proceeding before the Prescribed Authority is not of this kind because the tenure-holder admits that the holdings are his. There is ordinarily no dispute about any right or interest in the holdings before the Prescribed Authority. Again, when the tenure-holder accepts the statement sent to him by the Prescribed Authority under S. 10, there is ordinarily no dispute with respect to any right or interest in land. In these two instances Section 5 (2) will not apply. But where the tenure-holder does not voluntarily file a statement under S. 9 and disputes that he is not the tenure-holder of all or some of the plots included in the statement prepared under S. 10, there ensues a dispute about a right or interest in land. According to Section 32 of the Ceiling Act, the State Government is a party to every proceeding. So in such a case there is an adverse proceeding before the Prescribed Authority between him and the Government. The Prescribed Authority will decide under S. 12 whether the tenure-holder has any right or interest in all or some of the plots. If the Prescribed Authority finds that he has no right or interest in all or some of the plots he will exclude those plots from the statement served on him under Sec. 10 and determine the ceiling area and surplus land without taking into account the excluded plots. This is the very question which is in issue before the Consolidation authority under the Consolidation Act. Under S. 10 of the Consolidation Act the Consolidation Officer is called upon to adjudicate upon various claims to the plots falling within the consolidation area. Take this particular case. Admittedly a large number of persons have filed claims to the plots of the appellant before the Consolidation Authorities. Their claims are pending consideration in revisions under Section 48 of the Consolidation Act. If there revisions are allowed, a large area of land included in the statement under S. 10 of the Ceiling Act will have to be excluded from consideration by the Prescribed Authority. It is therefore obvious that the non-stay of proceedings under the Ceiling Act would cause great hardship to the appellant. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that all those claimants before the revising authority under the Consolidation Act can be impleaded as parties in the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. Assuming in arguendo that they can be so impleaded, the question still remains whether the proceedings under the Ceiling Act can go on while proceedings with respect to any right or interest in the plots of the appellant are simultaneously going on behalf the consolidation authorities. As soon as those claimants are impleaded in the proceeding under S. 12 of the Ceiling Act, the proceeding will more pointedly become a proceeding "in respect of declaration of right or interest in any land" under S. 5(2) of Consolidation Act.9. It is true that the purpose of the two Acts are different. Under the Ceiling Act the ceiling area and surplus land of a tenure-holder are determined; under the Consolidation Act the holdings of a tenure-holder are consolidated. But neither purpose may in a large number of cases be accomplished without first determining the right or interest of various claimants in the plots. So the crucial question for decision is as to whether the Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act or the Consolidation authority under the Consolidation Act has got a preamptive jurisdiction to determine rival rights and interest in the land of the appellant. We have already shown that the proceeding under S. 12 of the Ceiling Act is a proceeding within the purview of S. 5(2) of the Consolidation Act, Section 49 of the Consolidation Act materially provides;"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure-holders in respect of land lying in an area, for which a notification has been issued under sub-section (2) of S. 4... shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act...."10. Obviously the purpose of the non-obstante clause in S. 49 is to exclude the operation of any other overlapping Act. So the non-obstante clause would exclude the operation of the Ceiling Act while the Consolidation Act is in operation in a particular area. Section 5 (2) and S. 49 indicate clearly that the proceedings in the instant case are to be abated under Section 5(2). Section 48A of the Consolidation Act expressly saves the jurisdiction of the Custodian of the Evacuee properties to decide claims to the plots of the evacuees during consolidation operations. The absence of a like provision in relation to the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act lends support to our inference.11. We do not think that the construction of S. 5(2) should be influenced by the argument that if the proceedings under S. 12 of the Ceiling Act are abated, the appellant would retain lands in its hands permanently or for a long time. As soon as the consolidation operations are closed on the valid issue of a notification under S. 6 or S. 52, the proceeding under the Ceiling Act may be resumed. In any event, it is plain from the language of Ss. 5 (2) 48A and 49 of the Consolidation Act that the proceedings under the Ceiling Act cannot continue in the circumstances of this case as long as the consolidation operations are going on.12. As in a fresh petition the High Court has stayed the operation of the notification under S. 6 of the Consolidation Act, it is of no avail to the respondent in this appeal.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]8. When a tenure-holder voluntarily files a statement of his holdings under S. 9, the proceeding before the Prescribed Authority is not of this kind because the tenure-holder admits that the holdings are his. There is ordinarily no dispute about any right or interest in the holdings before the Prescribed Authority. Again, when the tenure-holder accepts the statement sent to him by the Prescribed Authority under S. 10, there is ordinarily no dispute with respect to any right or interest in land. In these two instances Section 5 (2) will not apply. But where the tenure-holder does not voluntarily file a statement under S. 9 and disputes that he is not the tenure-holder of all or some of the plots included in the statement prepared under S. 10, there ensues a dispute about a right or interest in land. According to Section 32 of the Ceiling Act, the State Government is a party to every proceeding. So in such a case there is an adverse proceeding before the Prescribed Authority between him and the Government. The Prescribed Authority will decide under S. 12 whether the tenure-holder has any right or interest in all or some of the plots. If the Prescribed Authority finds that he has no right or interest in all or some of the plots he will exclude those plots from the statement served on him under Sec. 10 and determine the ceiling area and surplus land without taking into account the excluded plots. This is the very question which is in issue before the Consolidation authority under the Consolidation Act. Under S. 10 of the Consolidation Act the Consolidation Officer is called upon to adjudicate upon various claims to the plots falling within the consolidation area. Take this particular case. Admittedly a large number of persons have filed claims to the plots of the appellant before the Consolidation Authorities. Their claims are pending consideration in revisions under Section 48 of the Consolidation Act. If there revisions are allowed, a large area of land included in the statement under S. 10 of the Ceiling Act will have to be excluded from consideration by the Prescribed Authority. It is therefore obvious that the non-stay of proceedings under the Ceiling Act would cause great hardship to the appellant. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that all those claimants before the revising authority under the Consolidation Act can be impleaded as parties in the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. Assuming in arguendo that they can be so impleaded, the question still remains whether the proceedings under the Ceiling Act can go on while proceedings with respect to any right or interest in the plots of the appellant are simultaneously going on behalf the consolidation authorities. As soon as those claimants are impleaded in the proceeding under S. 12 of the Ceiling Act, the proceeding will more pointedly become a proceeding "in respect of declaration of right or interest in any land" under S. 5(2) of Consolidation Act.Obviously the purpose of the non-obstante clause in S. 49 is to exclude the operation of any other overlapping Act. So the non-obstante clause would exclude the operation of the Ceiling Act while the Consolidation Act is in operation in a particular area. Section 5 (2) and S. 49 indicate clearly that the proceedings in the instant case are to be abated under Section 5(2). Section 48A of the Consolidation Act expressly saves the jurisdiction of the Custodian of the Evacuee properties to decide claims to the plots of the evacuees during consolidation operations. The absence of a like provision in relation to the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Act lends support to our inference.11. We do not think that the construction of S. 5(2) should be influenced by the argument that if the proceedings under S. 12 of the Ceiling Act are abated, the appellant would retain lands in its hands permanently or for a long time. As soon as the consolidation operations are closed on the valid issue of a notification under S. 6 or S. 52, the proceeding under the Ceiling Act may be resumed. In any event, it is plain from the language of Ss. 5 (2) 48A and 49 of the Consolidation Act that the proceedings under the Ceiling Act cannot continue in the circumstances of this case as long as the consolidation operations are going on.12. As in a fresh petition the High Court has stayed the operation of the notification under S. 6 of the Consolidation Act, it is of no avail to the respondent in this appeal.