SIMILESH KUMAR Vs. GAON SABHA USKAR GHAZIAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by Hon. K. C. Agarwal, J. I entirely agree. I would, however, like to make a few observations.

(2.) IN Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78 Hidayatullah, C. J., speaking for the Supreme Court, laid down that questions of the correctness of orders are for the decision of the authorities created by a statute, and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final, or there is an express prohibition under a particular Act.

(3.) UNDER section 8 the field book and the current annual register are revised and holdings are valued. UNDER S. 8-A the Statements of Principles are prepared, UNDER S. 9 the Assistant Consolidation Officer issues notice to the tenure-holder and other interested persons containing the relevant extracts from the annual register showing the rights and liabilities etc. UNDER sub-s. (2) of S.9 a right has been given to file an objection within 21 days of the receipt of the notice. Such objections are decided under S. 9-A by the Assistant Consolidation Officer by the process of reconciiation, and in case of dispute by the Consolidation Officer. UNDER sub-s. (8) of S. 9, the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation officer, acting under sub-section (2), are deemed to be a court of competent jurisdiction. Thus the Consolidation of Holdings Act provides a forum for the declaration or adjudication of rights in respect of land. It does not prescribe rights or liabilities. It postulates that the Consolidation officer shall decide the disputes with reference to existing law governing the rights of the parties. If he finds that in law the rights are already settled, he has to make a declaration to that effect, If he finds that the rights of the parties have already been adjudicated, and such adjudication has become final between them, he is bound to hold that the matter is not open for further adjudication.