GHAMARI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 16-12-1980, 27-1-1981 and 31-8-1982 passed by the authorities below in the proceedings under Section 42-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for short the 'the Act'.

(3.) A reading of the abovenoted statutory provisions clearly reveals that only two types of cases are covered by the said sub- section (2) of Section 52 and by the Rule 109-A. Firstly, the cases which were pending under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court at the time of notification and were decided after denotification and secondly, the cases which were pending before the consolidation authorities at the time of the denotification and judgment were rendered thereafter. Sub- section (2) of Section 52 begins with a obstante clause meaning thereby whatever has been provided by sub-section (1) is irrelevant and is not to be looked into while dealing with the case under sub-section (2 ). In the instant case admittedly on the date of the de-notification neither the case was pending before the High Court nor before any authority under the Act. The decision was rendered on 16-1-1969 much before the de- notification on the basis of which the application under Section 42-A of the Act was filed. By means of the said application the contesting respondent wanted to give effect to the order passed on 16-1-1969 when it was legally not permissible as Rule 109-A had no application in the present case. The authorities below had no jurisdiction to entertaining the application filed by the contesting respondent. They have acted illegally in entertain the said application and deciding the same in his favour.