HARI NAM SINGH Vs. MST. RAM DULARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point contended on behalf of the applicant, Hari Narain Singh, is that after the confirmation of the Statement of Proposals under Section 23 of the then UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (to be referred hereinafter as the Act), it was necessary for the Civil Judge to decide the reference under Section 12(4) of the Act in accordance with the Statement of Proposals so confirmed, all the more, where no objection under Section 20(2) of the Act had been filed, and consequently the orders of the subordinate courts are illegal and without jurisdiction and this Court should rectify the error by passing an order in accordance with the Statement of Proposals so finalized under Section 23. In connection with this question it shall also have to be considered whether in view of Section 22(2) of the Act this Court can pass any final order in the revision or must stay its hearing, If the revision cannot be disposed of, it shall be kept, pending without any final order, though suitable order shall be passed at a proper stage in accordance with the law.

(2.) THE Act was drastically amended in 1S58 and the law as it stood before such amendment contained many provisions which could be said to be ambiguous and to cause inconvenience to the public. But if it be Sound that the various provisions can be harmonized or can be given a clear and unambiguous interpretation, the law must have its course and the Courts cannot be unduly guided by equity or inconvenience to the public.

(3.) SIMILARLY , there is a difference in the phraseology of Sections. 12 (4), and 22(1) and 36(1) of the Act, whereunder a question of title can be referred to the Civil Judge for determination in accordance with the law. Section 12(4) speaks of the question not having been determined by a competent court, while Sections 22(1) and 36(1) of final determination by a competent court. It is, therefore, not necessary for the Consolidation Officer to refer the question of title to the Civil Judge under Section 12(4) if that question has already been determined by a competent court, though not finally determined, but the question of title must be referred to the Civil Judge under the subsequent two Sub -sections unless there has been final adjudication by a competent court. This will also suggest that a party filling an objection under Section 12(1) should made an objection under Sections 20(2) and 34(1) also if the entry in the Statement of Proposals, or the order contemplated by Section 34(l) of the Act is against him.