MURALI SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This matter is cognizable by the learned Single Judge as the writ petition has been filed against the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation exercising his revisional powers under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the 'act' ). The learned Single Judge while hearing the matter, expressed opinion that the matter is required to be heard by the Division Bench as it involved an important question of law. The learned Single Judge vide dated 11-1-1995 framed the question of law as to whether the Consolidation Officer was competent to decide the question of title in the grove land and the question of its partition amongst the co sharers. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 15th March, 1995 directed the matter to be placed before the Division Bench.

(2.) THE issue involved herein regarding the competence of the Consolidation Officer to adjudicate upon the title in land or grove or partition of shares amongst the co-sharers was dealt with by the learned Single Judge in Kaushar v. Ahmad Khan, 1962 ALJ 564, wherein it was observed as under : "the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, was placed on the statute book for providing for the consolidation of agricultural holding in Uttar Pradesh. THE scheme of consolidation could not possibly be successful unless all disputes relating to title in respect of different holdings in a village were first adjudicated upon, and decided finally between the parties. If that were not so, even after the consolidation of holdings has taken place, rival claimants would continue to agitate matters in respect of their rights and there was likely to be fragmentation of the holdings again as the disputes may be decided one way or the other. That is the main reason why the Act makes specific provision for the disposal of all disputes relating to questions of title in the course of the consolidation proceedings themselves. " (Emphasis added ).

(3.) THE question does arise as to whether in such a fact situation where the case is squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court, the reference is required to be answered or it is desirable to decide the issue by the Division Bench.