Case: Baljeet Singh and Others Vs. Risal Singh and Others

the first time that such suits and proceedings in the various Courts had to be stayed in which a question of title in respect of any plot mentioned in the statement with reference to el. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 11 had been raised and that these stayed suits or proceedings were to be decided subsequently in the manner prescribed, i. e., in the manner laid down under rules framed under the Act.These provisions of sub-s. (5) do not affect the appeals as they were prospective in operation and could apply to those cases only in which at atements under s. 11 were filed after the amendment had been made.The amendments made by the other sections of this Act and Act XVI of 1957, do not affect the hearing of the appeals in any way.13. Thereafter case Act XXXVIII of 1958. This Act again substituted a new s. 5, and the relevant portion of the substituted section reads: 5.Upon the publication of the notification under section 4 in the Official Gazette, the consequences, as hereinafter set forth, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, from the date specified thereunder till the publication of notification under section 52 or sub-section (1) of section 6, as. the case may be, ensue in the area to which . the declaration relates; namely- x x x x x (b) (1) all proceedings for correction of the records and all suits for declaration of rights and interest over land , or for posses- sion of land or for partition, pending before any authority or court, whether of first ins- tance, appeal or reference or revision, shall stand stayed, but without prejudice to the right of the persons affected to agitate the right or interests in dispute in the said pro- ceedings or suits before the consolidation au- thorities under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder: (ii) the findings of consolidation autho- rities in proceedings under this Act in respect of such right or interest in the land, -shall be acceptable to -the authority or court before whom the proceeding or suit was pending which may, on communication thereof by the parties concerned. proceed with the proceeding or suit, as the case may be; These provisions operate prospectively. The consequences mentioned in s. 5 ensue upon the publication of the notification under S. 4 in the Gazette and continue up to the publication of the notification under s. 52. They do not continue thereafter and could not operate on these cases in which the notification under s. 52 was issued on the 17th October 1955. They do not therefore bar the hearing of these appeals. These a peals have not. therefore become infructuous.Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11-A, 11-B, 12, 12-A, 12-B, 12-C and 12-D have been substituted by new section which apply to proceedings taken in consolidation operations subsequent to the coming into force of the Amending Act XXXVIII of 1858. Sub-s. (1) of is. 12 makes it clear that the matters mentioned in that sub-section cannot be raised subsequent to the date of notification under s. 52.14. There has been no material change made in as. 27 and 30, but s. 49 now reads: "49. 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 declaration has been issued under section 4, or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no civil or revenue court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act." This now provides that the adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land lying in an area under consolidation operations shall be done in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This leads practically to the same result to which cl. (ii) of sub-s. (b) of s. 5 leads to. The provisions of this section are not expressly limited to the period between the declaration under s. 4 and the notification under s. 52, but can be so construed as they relate back to s. 5 (b) (ii) of the Act as the declara- tion and adjudication of rights have to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Further the amended provision would apply to the proceedings regarding rights in land in the area for which a declaration under s. 4 has been issued after the amendment.We are therefore of opinion that these appeals have not become infructuous. (SCR at page 230) On the merits, we are of opinion that the Board of Revenue erred in holding that the appeals before it were barred by res judicata. It- is essential for any previous Adjudication of a point to bar its consideration second time that, the previous adjudication must have been between the same parties and that it be with respect to the same matter.15. The three suits in which judgments became final were against one Banwari and, not against any of the present appellants. The matter in issue in those three suits were also different from that in the suits which have given rise to these appeals. Each of the twelve suits related to different plots. A common judgment on account of similar questions being raised for decision in the different suits, does not always make that judgment amount to one judgment in those suits. Such a judgment will ordinarily be deemed to be really so many judgments as the suits disposed of by it. This Court expressed a similar view in Badri Narayan Singh v. Kamdeo Prasad Singh([1962] 3 S. C. R. 759.).16.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]We may state that no objection was raised on behalf of the respondent to the effect that these appeals could not have been instituted, but we have discussed that matter, in view of the fact that the appeals were filed after the State Government had made a declaration under s.4 of thehave not been referred to any provision in these, Acts, viz.. Act V of 1954, Act xxvr of 1954 and Act XIII of 1955 which would lead to the conclusion that these appeals have become infructuous.Act XX of 1955 made an amendment in s.27 of the Act. The amendment however does not affect the question before us. Act XXIV of 1956 which came into force on July 3, 1956, substituted a new section 5 in the place of the old. The substituted section 5 read : "5. When the declaration under section 4 has been published in the Gazette, the consequences as hereinafter set forth shall, from the date specified thereunder till the publication of the notification under section 52 in the Official Gazette to the effect that the consolidation operations have been closed, ensue in the area to which the declaration relates, namely ; (a) the district or the local area, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be under consolidation operations from the specified date, and the duty of preparing and maintaining the khasra and the annual Register under Chapter III of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall stand transferred to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), and (b) all proceedings for the correction of any such records pending before any court or authority shall be stayed but without pre- judice to the right of the persons affected to agitate the question before the Assistant Consolidation Officer under sub-section (3) of Section 8, or in proceedings commenced under and in accordance with section 10" Clearly, cl. (b) does not apply to these appeals as they have not arisen out of proceedings for the correction of villageXXIV of 1956 made certain amendments in s. 11 with which we are not concerned. We are not also concerned with the amendments this Act made in subs. (1) of s. 12. It substituted a new sub-section (5) and added sub-s. (7). These new subsections (5) and (7)are: "(5) Upon the publication of the statement under section 11, all suits or proceedings in the Court of first instance, appeal, reference or revision, in which the question of title in respect of any plot mentioned in the statement with reference to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section II has been raised, shall be stayed to the extent it relates to such plot and shall thereafter be disposed of in the manner prescribed. (7) A question of title in respect of any plot mentioned in the statement in clause (c) Of sub-section 1 of section 11, which might and ought to have been raised under subsection (1) but had not been raised, shall not be raised in any objection filed under subsection (2) of section 20, or under sub-section (1) of section 34." It is for the first time that such suits and proceedings in the various Courts had to be stayed in which a question of title in respect of any plot mentioned in the statement with reference to el. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 11 had been raised and that these stayed suits or proceedings were to be decided subsequently in the manner prescribed, i. e., in the manner laid down under rules framed under the Act.These provisions of sub-s. (5) do not affect the appeals as they were prospective in operation and could apply to those cases only in which at atements under s. 11 were filed after the amendment had been made.The amendments made by the other sections of this Act and Act XVI of 1957, do not affect the hearing of the appeals in anycase Act XXXVIII of 1958. This Act again substituted a new s. 5, and the relevant portion of the substituted section reads: 5.Upon the publication of the notification under section 4 in the Official Gazette, the consequences, as hereinafter set forth, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, from the date specified thereunder till the publication of notification under section 52 or sub-section (1) of section 6, as. the case may be, ensue in the area to which . the declaration relates; namely- x x x x x (b) (1) all proceedings for correction of the records and all suits for declaration of rights and interest over land , or for posses- sion of land or for partition, pending before any authority or court, whether of first ins- tance, appeal or reference or revision, shall stand stayed, but without prejudice to the right of the persons affected to agitate the right or interests in dispute in the said pro- ceedings or suits before the consolidation au- thorities under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder: (ii) the findings of consolidation autho- rities in proceedings under this Act in respect of such right or interest in the land, -shall be acceptable to -the authority or court before whom the proceeding or suit was pending which may, on communication thereof by the parties concerned. proceed with the proceeding or suit, as the case may be; These provisions operate prospectively. The consequences mentioned in s. 5 ensue upon the publication of the notification under S. 4 in the Gazette and continue up to the publication of the notification under s. 52. They do not continue thereafter and could not operate on these cases in which the notification under s. 52 was issued on the 17th October 1955. They do not therefore bar the hearing of these appeals. These a peals have not. therefore become infructuous.Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11-A, 11-B, 12, 12-A, 12-B, 12-C and 12-D have been substituted by new section which apply to proceedings taken in consolidation operations subsequent to the coming into force of the Amending Act XXXVIII of 1858. Sub-s. (1) of is. 12 makes it clear that the matters mentioned in that sub-section cannot be raised subsequent to the date of notification under s.has been no material change made in as. 27 and 30, but s. 49 now reads: "49. 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 declaration has been issued under section 4, or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no civil or revenue court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act." This now provides that the adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land lying in an area under consolidation operations shall be done in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This leads practically to the same result to which cl. (ii) of sub-s. (b) of s. 5 leads to. The provisions of this section are not expressly limited to the period between the declaration under s. 4 and the notification under s. 52, but can be so construed as they relate back to s. 5 (b) (ii) of the Act as the declara- tion and adjudication of rights have to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Further the amended provision would apply to the proceedings regarding rights in land in the area for which a declaration under s. 4 has been issued after the amendment.We are therefore of opinion that these appeals have not become infructuous. (SCR at page 230) On the merits, we are of opinion that the Board of Revenue erred in holding that the appeals before it were barred by res judicata. It- is essential for any previous Adjudication of a point to bar its consideration second time that, the previous adjudication must have been between the same parties and that it be with respect to the samethree suits in which judgments became final were against one Banwari and, not against any of the present appellants. The matter in issue in those three suits were also different from that in the suits which have given rise to these appeals. Each of the twelve suits related to different plots. A common judgment on account of similar questions being raised for decision in the different suits, does not always make that judgment amount to one judgment in those suits. Such a judgment will ordinarily be deemed to be really so many judgments as the suits disposed of by it. This Court expressed a similar view in Badri Narayan Singh v. Kamdeo Prasad Singh([1962] 3 S. C. R. 759.).