PEAREY LAL Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER BUDHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEVENTEEN years of litigation once before the Civil Judge acting as arbitrator, once before the Tahsildar, twice before Sub-Divisional Officer and this court have not settled the dispute between the parties started on an objection filed under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood prior to its amendment before 1963.

(2.) THE question, on facts, which are more or less admitted, is whether Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer by virtue of Rule 109-A of Consolidation of Holdings Rules are empowered to decide an objection regarding title, pending on the date of notification issued under Section 52(1) of the Act.

(3.) THAT the objection, appeal or proceeding pending on the date of deno-tification shall continue to be decided has been put beyond doubt by a series of decisions of this court-Jiwa Ram v. Deputy Director Consolidation, 1973 AWR 419, R. R. Basant Singh v. Deputy Director Consolidation, 1969 RD 42 and Om Prakash v. Saiyed Husain, 1968 RD 460.