TRILOKI NATH Vs. RAM GOPAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plots No. 890, 891 and 892 situate in village Sukhmal Par Nizamabad, Tahsil Firozabad, district Agra formed the subject matter of the dispute in the present appeal. Ramgopal claims to be the transferee of these plots on the basis of various deeds dated 27 -3 -1951, 1 -6 -1951, 31 -3 -1956 and 24 -4 -1956. The case of Ramgopal is that these plots had been taken for the express purpose of running a brick kiln and for taking out the earth therefrom for the preparation of bricks in the said kiln. Admittedly, the village in question came under consolidation operations in 1963. Triloki Nath claims to be a transferee of the said plots on the basis of a sale deed dated 9 -10 -1963. He claimed to be in possession of the plots as Bhumidhar from the date of transfer, which according to his case was effected after obtaining the necessary permission from the consolidation authorities as required u/Sec. 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953. It appears that a civil suit was pending between the parties on the date when the village in question was notified Under Sec. 4(2) of the said Act. This suit was filed by Ramgopal for injunction restraining Triloki Nath from interfering with his possession of the plots in suit. This suit was abated Under Sec. 5 of the said Act. The parties filed their respective claim before the Consolidation Officer. On the date fixed for evidence between the parties before the Consolidation Officer Ramgopal moved an application to the effect that the disputed plots were not covered by the definition of "land" as laid down in the Consolidation of Holdings Act and as such the consolidation court had no jurisdiction to proceed and to determine the title of the parties. The Consolidation Officer made a local inspection of the plots in the presence of the parties. His inspection note dated 30 -7 -1964 disclosed that plot Nos. 890, 891 and 892 were being used for preparing bricks for the brick kiln. There was no crop standing on the said plot. Pits had been dug in these plots. To the south of these plots was a Bhatta belonging to Sri Ramgopal and to the north a Bhatta belonging to Sri Triloki Nath. On eastern border of plot No. 892 there were some bricks lying with the mark of 'Jai Hind'. As a result of the spot inspection referred to above, the Consolidation Officer came to the conclusion that the disputed plots were not cultivated on the spot and that there were pits more than 8 or 10 feet deep which were being used for making bricks for the brick kiln. In this view of the matter, he held that the said plots did not come within the definition of the word if 'land' as given in the Consolidation of Holdings Apt and as such it was not within his jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties.

(2.) Aggrieved thereby, Triloki Nath preferred an appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Settlement Officer also made a local inspection of the spot in question. It appears that even though the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) found that the earth of the disputed plots was used for preparing bricks, yet because in his view the land could be used for cultivation purposes even though no (sic) was sown at the time of his inspection, the area in question was covered of the definition of the work 'land' as envisaged in the Consolidation of Holdings Act. In this view of the matter, he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Consolidation -Officer. A revision was filed by Sri Ramgopal before the Dy. Director (Consolidation) Under Sec. (sic) of the Act. This revision was dismissed and the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was affirmed.

(3.) Sri Ramgopal filed, a writ petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court. The learned Single Judge was of the view this the plots in dispute could not be (sic) as land for the purpose of Consolidation of Holdings Act. They were being used for non -agricultural purposes at the time when the consolidation operations were in progress and the mere potentiality of the plots being used at some future date for agricultural purposes Would Act be sufficient to bring the area within the definition of land as envisaged by the Act. The single Judge thus allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Dy. Director (Consolidation) and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). He restored the order of the Consolidation Officer. Triloki Nath thereafter filed the special appeal which is before us for decision.