SUKH MANGAL SINGH Vs. JHABRA AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against a decision of a learned Single Judge who had dismissed the writ petition. The dispute pertains to two plots Nos. 133 and 159. Tomer was the chief tenant of these two plots. Subsequently in proceedings under Section 240(J.) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act compensation was given to Tomer and as is evident from Annexure IX to the writ petition one Pandohi was recorded as Adhivasi. On the demise of Pandohi Singh his nephew Sukh Mangal Singh came to be recorded as Adhivasi vide Annexure II to the writ petition. He subsequently acquired Sirdari rights. During consolidation proceedings Tomer, however, raised an objection claiming correction of the entry in the record by having the name of Sukh Mangal Singh expunged and substituting his name in his place. This objection was rejected by the Consolidation Officer but on appeal the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside and the objection of Tomer was allowed. The revision filed by Sukh Mangal Singh was dismissed. Sukh Mangal Singh then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. That petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge who placed reliance on a Full Bench Decision of this Court in Maqbool Raza (Jaffar Husain v. Joint Director of Consolidation and others A.I.R. 1969 All. 69. In this Special Appeal filed by Sukh Mangal Singh it was urged that the legal position now stands explained by a larger Bench consisting of five Judges in Avdhesh Singh and another v. Bikarma Ahir and others 1975 R.D. 132 wherein it has been inter alia laid down that the land-holder against whom compensation statement has become final and who has received compensation has no locus stand to re-agitate his rights in respect of the land in question. It appears from Annexure IX to the writ petition that compensation statement had become final against Tomer who was the land-holder vis a vis Pan-dohi Singh and it further appears from the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) Annexure I to the writ petition that Tomer had received compensation as well. That being so, Tomer had no locus standi to reagitate his rights in respect of the land in question before the Consolidation Authorities vide Avdhesh Singh and another v. Bikarma Ahir and others (2).

(2.) IN the circumstances, the appeal has to be allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is, therefore, set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated December 14, 1966 passed by the opposite party No. 2 and the order dated August 18, 1967 passed by the opposite party No. 3 are quashed. The order of the Consolidation Officer dated June 7, 1966 dismissing the objection of opposite party No. 1 is restored. There is no order as to costs.