Case: Ram Adhar Singh Vs. Ramroop Singh &amp; Others

suits for possession of land, because, before a claim for possession is accepted, the Court will have necessarily to adjudicate upon the right or interest of the plaintiff, in respect of the disputed property, taking into account the claim of the opposite party. Therefore, in our opinion, the suit, instituted by the respondent, is covered by the amended Section 5 of the Act. 8. The various provisions, contained in the act, also clearly indicate that disputes of the nature which exists between the parties in the present litigation, are all now within the jurisdiction of the authorities constituted under the Act, to adjudicate upon. The Act itself is one, to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings in Uttar Pradesh for the development of agriculture. Section 3 defines the various expressions Chak means the parcel of land allotted to a tenure-holder, on consolidation. Consolidation means rearrangement of holdings in a suit amongst several tenure-holder in such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact. tenure-holder means a bhumidhar or sirdar of the land concerned and includes an asami. Section 4 gives power to the State Government to make a declaration that a district or part thereof may be brought under consolidation operations. There is no controversy, that the notification, issued by the State Government, under this section on October 22, 1965 takes in the area where the disputed lands are situated. We have already referred to the provisions, contained in the original as well as the amended Section 5. 9. Sections 8 and 8A, deal with the preparation of records, and statements, by the Consolidation Officer, and Section 9 provides for the Assistant Consolidation Officer sending notices to tenure-holders concerned, and other persons interested, showing their interests in, and liabilities, in relation to, the land. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 provides for a person, to whom a notice under subsection (1) has been sent or any other person interested, to file objections within the time specified therein, to the Assistant Consolidation Officer, disputing the correctness of the entries made in the records. One of the entries, we have already pointed out, relates to the rights in and liabilities in relation to the land. There are provisions relating to the hearing of objections and the Assistant Consolidation Officer is deemed to be a Court of competent jurisdiction. Provisions have also been made for an aggrieved party to file an appeal, to the Settlement Officer and Section 11 provides that the order of the Settlement Officer is final and that it cannot be questioned in any Court of law. 10. Section 11A provides that no question in respect of a claim to a land, shall be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings, if they have not been raised earlier. Section 24 provides for the tenure-holder being entitled to enter into possession of the plots allotted to him. Section 28 also gives power to the Assistant Consolidation Officer, on the application of the tenure-holder, to be put in possession of the land, allotted to him. We have already referred to the fact that the expression tenure holder under Section 3 (11), means a bhumidhar or sirdar of the land concerned and includes also an asami. Section 40 provides that proceedings before the Consolidation authorities are to be deemed to be judicial proceedings. Section 48 provides for the Director of Consolidation, exercising his powers of revision, regarding cases decided, or proceedings taken, by any subordinate authority. Section 49 excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain any suit or proceeding, with respect to rights in respect of lands, covered by the notification, under Section 4, or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could, or ought to have been taken under the Act. 11. We have referred only to some of the salient provisions of the Act and they will clearly show that the subject matter of the dispute, between the parties in this litigation, are all matters falling for adjudication, within the purview of the authorities, constituted under the Act. In fact, Cl. (b), of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, as it now stands, also lays down that the abatement of the proceedings, under Clause (a) shall be without prejudice to the rights of persons affected to agitate the right or interest in dispute in the said suits or proceedings, before the appropriate consolidation authorities under the Act and in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made, thereunder. 12. Having due regard to the nature of this litigation, and the provisions of the Act, we are satisfied that the amended Section 5 of the Act applies to these proceedings. If that is so, an order has to be passed that the suit, out of which these proceedings arise, stands abated. 13. That takes us on to the second contention, of Mr. Gupte, viz., that the provisions of the amended Section 5 are ultra vires, inasmuch as the State Legislature has enacted a provision, which impinges upon the jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel has no doubt referred us, to the, various entries in the Lists in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, but we are not satisfied that there is any merit either, in this contention.The State Legislature has not passed any legislation affecting the jurisdiction of this Court. On the other hand, what the State Legislature has done is only to make provision in respect of matters, within its jurisdiction and to declare that a suit, instituted in a Court, within its area, has abated. The position, ultimately, is that this Court takes note of a subsequent event viz., the passing of the Amending Act, and the amendment of Section 5 thereby, by the State Legislature, and, on that basis, it holds that the suit out of which these proceedings arise, stands abated. Therefore, there is no question of the Legislature of the State having passed any legislation affecting the jurisdiction of this Court

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

Explanation:
1[ds]6. After a consideration of the contentions of both the learned counsel, we are satisfied that the stand taken on behalf of the respondent on both the points cannot be accepted7. We have already extracted the provisions of Section 5 of the Act as it originally stood, and as it now stands, after the amendment in 1966. No doubt, in Cl (b) (i) of Section 5, as it originally stood, suits for possession of land were also expressly dealt with. But, under the amended Section 5, there is no direct reference to suits for possession of landNo doubt this line of reasoning, on the face of it, may appear to be attractive; but we are not satisfied that there is any merit in that contention.Suits for possession, as such, has not been expressly referred to, in the new Section 5, but. in our opinion, the expression every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land , are comprehensive enough to take in suits for possession of land, because, before a claim for possession is accepted, the Court will have necessarily to adjudicate upon the right or interest of the plaintiff, in respect of the disputed property, taking into account the claim of the opposite party. Therefore, in our opinion, the suit, instituted by the respondent, is covered by the amended Section 5 of the Act11. We have referred only to some of the salient provisions of the Act and they will clearly show that the subject matter of the dispute, between the parties in this litigation, are all matters falling for adjudication, within the purview of the authorities, constituted under the Act. In fact, Cl. (b), of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, as it now stands, also lays down that the abatement of the proceedings, under Clause (a) shall be without prejudice to the rights of persons affected to agitate the right or interest in dispute in the said suits or proceedings, before the appropriate consolidation authorities under the Act and in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made, thereunder12. Having due regard to the nature of this litigation, and the provisions of the Act, we are satisfied that the amended Section 5 of the Act applies to these proceedings. If that is so, an order has to be passed that the suit, out of which these proceedings arise, stands abated13. That takes us on to the second contention, of Mr. Gupte, viz., that the provisions of the amended Section 5 are ultra vires, inasmuch as the State Legislature has enacted a provision, which impinges upon the jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel has no doubt referred us, to the, various entries in the Lists in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, but we are not satisfied that there is any merit either, in this contention.The State Legislature has not passed any legislation affecting the jurisdiction of this Court. On the other hand, what the State Legislature has done is only to make provision in respect of matters, within its jurisdiction and to declare that a suit, instituted in a Court, within its area, has abated. The position, ultimately, is that this Court takes note of a subsequent event viz., the passing of the Amending Act, and the amendment of Section 5 thereby, by the State Legislature, and, on that basis, it holds that the suit out of which these proceedings arise, stands abated. Therefore, there is no question of the Legislature of the State having passed any legislation affecting the jurisdiction of this Court