RAKESH KUMAR Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two connected special appeals arise out of proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (here after referred to as the Act). Ramesh Chandra filed two objections Under Section 12 of the Act with respect to holdings in two different villages. There was delay in filing the objections. The delay was condoned by the Consolidation Officer Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. When the matter went before the Settlement Officer (C) in appeal, he held that it was not possible to entertain the objections Under Section 12 of the Act at that stage in view of the fact that the consolidation scheme had been confirmed Under Section 23 of the Act. This view was upheld in revision by the Deputy Director (C). These decisions of the Deputy Director (C) and the Settlement Officer (C) were challenged by Ramesh Chandra by filing two writ petitions in this Court. The two writ petitions have been allowed by a single Judge of this Court. It has been ordered that the Deputy Director (C) should rehear the revisions on merits. Against this decision of the single Judge dated 17 -7 -1969, the present special appeals have been filed by Rakesh Kumar, opposite party.

(2.) THE main contention of Mr. R.M. Sahai, appearing for the Appellant, is that the objections Under Section 12 of the Act could not be entertained in view of the fact that the consolidation scheme had been confirmed Under Section 23 of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Natho v. Board of Revenue UP, 1966 RD (HC) 170. It was held in that case that once proceedings upto the stage of Section 22 of the Act have been completed and the statement of proposals Under Section 23 have been confirmed the statement of proposals becomes final and the effect of finality is that all adjudications already made upto that date became final. No power at all is conferred at a later stage to declare or adjudicate upon the rights of tenure -holders.

(3.) MR . R.M. Sahai tried to distinguish the present case from Sita's case on the ground that in Sita's case an objection Under Section 11 of the Act was pending at the time of confirmation Under Section 23 of the Act, while in the present case the objection was filed long after confirmation Under Section 23 of the Act. It is pointed out that in the present case the scheme was confirmed in the year 1961, whereas the objection was filed by Ramesh Chandra as late as August 1963.