SAMPATI Vs. RAM KARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge allowing the writ petition and quashing the orders of Respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9. The facts giving rise to this appeal are these.

(2.) RAM Karan, Kedar Rai, Tirath Raj Rai, Onkar Rai Petitioners as well as Smt. Sampati Respondent No. 1 and Smt. Jamuni were recorded jointly in the basic year in khata No. 22 of village Badha Buzurg, Khata No. 21 of village Bnaorwa and khata Nos. 24 and 35 of village Baraut. On 22nd July 1957 Smt. Sampati Respondent No. 1 instituted a Civil suit in the court of Munsif, Decria, seeking partition of the land in dispute claiming half share therein. The present Respondents contested that suit contending that Smt. Sampati had only 1/4 share and not 1/2 share in the property. The learned Munsif accepted the contention of Sampati, held her entitled to 1/2 share in the property and decreed the suit. The present Respondents then filed an appeal from that decree. On the request of both the parties the learned Civil Judge, before whom the appeal was pending, referred the dispute for arbitration to an arbitrator. The arbitrator entered upon the reference and made his award dated 1st June 1963 allowing 1/4th share to Smt. Sampati in the said land as also some additional land in one of the three villages in question. The share of the present Respondents was held to be 3/4th in the said property. As no objection was filed against the said award the learned Civil Judge made the said award a rule of the court and passed a decree in terms thereof. The decree became final as no appeal was preferred against the same. While the said civil suit was pending, the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was enforced. Hence, the Prescribed Authority issued notice to Smt. Sampati under the said Act and ultimately by an order dated 8th June 1962 declared an area of 34 -64 acres as surplus land out of the land included in the aforesaid three khatas. The said order was, however, recalled on the motion of the present Respondents on the ground that they had not been heard in the matter. The present Respondents filed their objection alleging that no land should have been declared surplus land. This objection was, however, rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 9th February, 1966. The appeal preferred against that order was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Deoria on 30th July 1966. The matter was then carried to this Court in revision but that too was dismissed on 5th October 1968 on the ground that no revision lay against that order. The present Respondents then challenged the order of the Prescribed Authority and the Civil Judge by a writ petition which was dismissed on 30th April 1969. The orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 declaring an area of 34 -64 acres as surplus land thus became final. The claim of the present Respondents before the Prescribed Authority was that they had 3/4th share in the property hence no surplus land could declared. In support of their contention reliance was placed on the afore said decree passed by the civil court in the partition suit, The Prescribed Authority as also the Additional Civil Judge, however, did not rely on that decree and held that Smt. Sampati had half share in the property in dispute and on that basis the area of surplus land was determined. It may be noticed that during the pendency of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, the aforesaid three villages, where the land in dispute is situate, were brought under the consolidation operations under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1963 vide notification dated 14th November 1964 issued under Section 4 of the said Act. Smt. Sampati filed objections before the Consolidation Officer claiming half share in the remaining land which had not been declared surplus. The present Respondents contested her claim alleging that she had only 1/4th share in the said land and that they were entitled to 3/4th share on the basis of the aforesaid decree passed by the civil court in terms of the award. Hans Nath, Raj Nath and Kamla, who were arrayed as opposite parties in the writ petition sought mutation of their names on the 1/2 share of Smt. Sampati on the basis of a gift deed executed by her in their favour. The Consolidation Officer held that Smt. Sampati had half share in the said land and the other half share belonged to the present Respondents and entries were ordered to be made accordingly. The appeal against that order was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 19th January, 1968. Similarly, a revision preferred against that order was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 10th March, 1969. The claim of Hans Nath, Raj Nath and Kamla was, however, not accepted. The present Respondents then challenged the order of the consolidation authorities by means of a writ petition. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the aforesaid orders of the consolidation authorities. Against that decision the present Appellants have preferred this appeal.

(3.) IT is true that the villages where the khatas of land in dispute are situate were brought under consolidation operations during the pendency of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960. These proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 should, therefore, have not continued but the fact remains that the proceedings did continue and the Prescribed Authority did pass an order holding that Smt. Sampati had half share in the land in question. That order was confirmed in appeal. A revision preferred against the appellate order was rejected by this Court on the ground that it was not maintainable. Thereafter the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority were challenged by means of a writ petition which too was dismissed. Thus, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and confirmed by the appellate authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 came to acquire finality. It appears that the consolidation authorities did not pass any order during the pendency of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960. On the other hand, they placed reliance on the order passed by the authorities under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 in holding that the share of Smt. Sampati in the land in question was half. The submission of the learned Counsel that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 was without jurisdiction and, therefore, a nullity is not tenable. It was held in U.G. Sugar Mills v. Civil Judge Bijnor : AIR 1970 All. 130 that: