MOOL CHANDRA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed today be taken on record.

(2.) HEARD Sri B.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.K. Misra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5.

(3.) SRI B.B. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the sale -deed executed on 18 -11 -1989 respondent No. 5 had specifically averred that he had adopted/embraced Baudh religion and that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste. Further respondent No. 5 gave statement in the Court of the Assistant Consolidation Officer that his name be deleted and the name of the petitioners may be recorded. In this backdrop of the matter respondent No. 5 could not have filed appeal alleging that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and, therefore, the sale -deed in favour of the petitioners is hit by Section 157 -A of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short referred to as U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951) and secondly that he had not signed on the compromise before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It is also submitted by Sri Paul that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has recorded specific findings both in favour of the petitioners and also against the petitioners which are binding on the Consolidation Officer and may ultimately influence his decision. According to him there was nothing left for the Consolidation Officer to decide. Sri Paul has further submitted that the sale -deed had been executed after obtaining necessary permission from the Settlement Officer Consolidation and after the notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short referred to as U.P. C.H. Act) was published the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short referred to as U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951) had no application and the permission given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was all that, that was required and no permission was required under Section 157 -A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. According to him after the notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act has been published the responsibility of maintaining the record and the right to prepare the village book, receipt book and the annual register was to be performed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and, therefore, the provisions provided under the U.P. C.H. Act alone can be looked into and no provisions from the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 can be taken into consideration and further that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 shall remain suspended for the said period during which consolidation is going on so that there may not be any overlapping between the provisions of the two Acts.