BUDHLAL Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING unable to agree with the views expressed by a learned Single Judge in Smt. Jagrani v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U. P., 1972 RD 96= 1972 AWR (J) 3 the learned Judge who heard this writ petition has referred the following question of law for decision by a larger Bench :- "Whether a Sirdar could co-opt a third person as Sirdar with her and, if so, what rights the co-opted person will have during the life time of the Sirdar and thereafter ?"

(2.) THE co-option is alleged to have been effected in 1953 or 1954, that is to say, after the coming into force of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951. THE law in this respect stood settled by Kalawati v. Consolidation Officer, 1968 AWR 139. In that case one of us (Satish Chandra, J.) held :-

(3.) SMT. Jagrani v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, because of which the learned Single Judge felt obliged to refer the case to larger Bench is clearly distinguishable. In that case in proceedings under Sec. 145, CrPC the parties entered into a compromise and agreed to remain in possession over half of the holding each. The learned Single Judge in that case held that the compromise was binding between the parties and both parties became co-tenure holders to the extent of half share. In that case the compromise in proceedings under Sec. 145 CrPC appears to have taken place prior to the abolition of zamindari, i.e., when the U. P. Tenancy Act was in force. This is clear from the observation of the Judge in that case that "the landholder, i. e., the then zamindar, has never challenged the co-option of the respondent no. 4 as a co-tenant by the petitioner".