CHANGU RAM Vs. III ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions are connected and they can be disposed of by one common judgment. It is a case of co-tenure-holders. The notice under Sec. 10(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioners in the two petitions and objections were filed. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority and thereafter the matter went to the appellate court. The appellate court passed remand order one after another and the last such remand order dated 18-9-1978 was passed by the appellate court in the case of the petitioner Changu Ram, a true copy whereof is Annexure 7 to his petition. In the case of the petitioner Sita Ram the remand order was passed on the same date and its true copy is Annexure 2 to his petition Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority decided the two cases and his order is dated 11-9-1979 in the case of Changu Ram and a true copy thereof is Annexure 8 to his petition. In the case of Sita Ram also the Prescribed Authority decided the case on 11-9-1979 and a true copy of his order is Annexure 3 to Sita Ram's petition. There-after two separate appeals were filed by the said two tenure-holders and they decided by the appellate court by separate order both dated 18-3-1980. In the petition of Changu Ram a certified copy of the said order is Annexure 14 to this petition and in the case of Sita Ram it is Annexure 7 to his petition.

(2.) NOW both the petitioners have come up in these two separate but connected petitions and in support thereof, I have heard Sri R. R. K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions.

(3.) IT was next contended that there had been some reduction of area in the Consolidation proceedings, not on account of title adjudication but due to other reasons and the same on the authority of Satyapal Singh v. State of U. P., 1979 AWC 217 should have been accepted even though such reduction in area was brought about after 8-6-1973. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Consolidation Authorities gave directions in respect of certain plots which were wrongly recorded and on a similar other grounds the area of the tenure holders stood reduced during consolidation proceedings. This point is common to both the petitions. IT has seemed to me that the appellate court did not have the benefit of the guidance which was laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Satyapal Singh's case (supra). IT may again be emphasised that the reduction of area of the tenure-holder in consolidation proceedings may come about due to various reasons. One reason may be that on an adjudication of title by the Consolidation Authorities between rival claimants, tenure-holder loses some land in the consolidation proceedings and thus there is a reduction of his area in the consolidation proceedings compared to what he held before the consolidation proceedings. The ceiling law does not grant any benefit to such a tenure-holder on account of such reduction during the consolidation proceedings brought about on account of the adjudication of title by the Consolidation Authorities, if such adjudication has taken place after 8-6-1973. However, very often reduction in the area of land during consolidation proceedings is brought about on account of the allotment of different plots with different valuations or on account of certain land of the tenure-holder being taken for public purposes etc. during the consolidation proceedings. The Division Bench in Satyapal Singh's case laid down that a tenure-holder should be entitled to the benefit of the reduction in the area during consolidation proceedings even if such reduction has taken place after 8-6-1973, because such reduction is brought about by the operation of law. In my view, the ratio laid down by the Division Bench should not be extended beyond that such as is warranted by the facts of that case. The facts of the said decision would not justify any inference that the reduction of area brought about after 8-6-1973 on account of title adjudication by the Consolidation Authorities should also be given effect to by the ceiling authority. This inference will be wholly against the scheme of the ceiling Act.