PHOOL KALI Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against an order passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Faizabad dated 14-2-1975 whereby the Court has decided an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act The Consolidation Officer made a reference to the Civil Judge under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act who referred the matter to an arbitrator for giving an award. The award given by the arbitrator is Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition. Annexure 2 is the order whereby the award has been set aside. Aggrieved by the order Annexure 2 an appeal was preferred to the District Judge which came up for hearing before the 1st Additional District Judge who allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Civil Judge quashing the award and directed that the award dated 2-8-1972 shall be made rule of Court. Against the appellate order Annexure 3 the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that one Ram Raj Singh was recorded as original tenant over plots Nos. 86/2, 86/3 and 86/4 in the basic year. Lalta and Chandra Bhal filed objections under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act hereinafter referred to as Act). After the death of Chandra Bhal, in his place, name of Smt. Phool Kali was substituted. THEir case is that the trees were planted by their ancestors and they were grove holders and also bhumidhars. Another objection was filed by Nazir Husain. He is dead and in his place his heirs have been brought on record. In the objection Nazir Husain alleged that Ram Raj Singh, Sheetal Singh Mahabir Singh had mortgaged the property with their ancestors and a suit for foreclosure had been decreed and they have been in possession. In proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. their possession was found.

(3.) THE objections relevant for the purpose of this case which were raised before the Civil Judge are that the reference to arbitration was invalid as the provisions of Rule 34(2) of the rules framed under the Act which requires consultation with the Land Management Committee was not observed THE contention of the objector was that under the said rule Assistant Consolidation Officer had to obtain the views of the Land Management Committee and then submit it to the Consolidation Officer and since this requirement was not fulfilled the reference was bad. THE other point raised was that the material evidence was not considered by the arbitrator and while considering the evidence he has not taken into consideration the affidavit filed by the plaintiff which states :--