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

The dispute, which pertained to Plot Nos. 1366, 167 and 1368 (Old) situate in Village Maliyana, District Meerut, was decided by the Consolidation Officer, Meerut, in favour of the appellant by his judgment and order dated 19.4.1969. An appeal filed against that decision was dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Meerut, by judgment dated 25.11.1969 and the Revision filed under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against the above judgment by respondent Dewa Ram, who is now represented by respondents 2 to 5, was dismissed on the ground that the certified copy of the judgment passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), as required by Rule 111(1) of the Rules made under the Act, had not been filed with the memo of revision. But the High Court, in a writ petition which was thereafter filed by Dewa Ram, set aside the judgment passed by the Deputy Director (consolidation), on 1.11.1973 and remanded the case to the Deputy Director (Consolidation) for a fresh decision on merits. After remand, the Deputy Director (Consolidation), by judgment dated 31.3.1975, reversed the earlier judgments passed by the consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (consolidation), and held that Dewa Ram, in whose favour a lease of the above plots was executed by the Land Management committee, had become "Sirdar" of those plots and his name may be recorded as such in the Revenue records. A writ petition filed thereafter by the appellant in the Alllahabad High Court was dismissed by the impugned judgment datedthe commencement of the proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Dewa Ram, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 to 5, who shall hereinafter be referred to as respondent, filed objections claiming "Sirdari" rights over the plots referred to above on the basis of a lease executed in his favour on 18.4.1966 by the Chairman, Land Management Committee, who was also the Pradhan of theJaswant Sugar Mills, which has since been taken over by the appellant, also filed objections claiming Sirdari rights over those plots over which there existed their storage tank for molasses and a tank for sullage water. These structures namely, the storage tank for molasses and the tank for sullage water were said to exist since the time of Messrs Indira Sugar Works which was established in the year 1932-33 by one Seth Inder Sain who, after taking permission of the then Zamindars, had constructed molasses tank and also a tank for storage of sullage water and dumping of waste material, while a portion of the aforesaid plots was used as land appurtenant to staff quarters of the Sugar Mill. The plots were surrounded on all sides by the other land of the Sugar Mill. Seth Inder Sain transferred the Mill to Messrs Jaswant Sugar Mill and thereafter, as pointed out above, it was taken over by the appellant which is a Govt. owned Corporation and the plots in question are in their possession since then. On the basis of these facts, it was pleaded before the consolidation Officer that since the plots were being used for storage of molasses and sullage water and also as appurtenant land for better enjoyment of the other property of the Mill, they never vested in the State on the abolition of "Zamindari" by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,objections of the Mill were allowed by the consolidation Officer as also by the Settlement Officer (consolidation), but were rejected by the Deputy Director (Consolidation) and the High Court.

Court's reasoning:
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.