APARBAL YADAV Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Singh, J. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 30-9-1976, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 18-6-1977 and Deputy Director Consolidation dated 10-8-1979 (Annexures 4 to 7 respectively ).

(2.) THE facts for disposal of the writ petition, in brief, can be summarised as thus.

(3.) IN response to the aforesaid submission learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the objection which was filed in proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of the Act by the predecessor of the petitioner was finally rejected by the consolidation Courts on the merits and therefore, it was open for the petitioners to have challenged those orders before this Court but the same having been permitted to become final, now filing of objection under Section 12 of the U. P. C. H. Act and prayer to re-examine the petitioner's claim clearly amounts to re-adjudication on the same cause of action which cannot be said to be legally permissible and otherwise also, it is clearly barred under Section 11-A of the U. P. C. H. Act. It is submitted that merely there is change in law and it has been held that Sanad is to be effective from the date of deposit, on grant of Sanad Seerdar is to be treated as Bhumidhar, if the dispute has already been decided and matter has become final the parties cannot be permitted to claim any change by filing fresh application/objection and therefore, it is argued that Courts have rightly rejected petitioner's claim. IN support of the submission that by change of law or by a decision by which earlier law has been over-ruled no review in respect to the rights of the parties can be permitted, reliance has been placed on decision as has been given in case of Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors. , reported in 1999 JT (10) SC 285. Another decision has been referred as has been given by this Court in case of Babu Lal v. Smt. Janaka and others, reported in 1966 RD 65, for the submission that orders passed in the proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of the U. P. C. H. Act, will operate as res-judicata.