MEWATI DEVI Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case comes before us upon a reference by a Division Bench which felt that certain Division Bench decisions of this Court on the point set out below required consideration by a larger Bench. The point which has let to this reference is whether under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (briefly 'the Act') the consolidation authorities are required to dispose of the entire proceedings relating to claims to land and partition of joint holdings under S.9-A before undertaking the preparation and publication of the provisional consolidation Scheme under Ss.19-A and 20 of the Act. On this point there is a conflict of opinion as reflected by two learned single Judge decisions on the one hand and two Division Bench decisions on the other.

(2.) In the case of Chandrapal Singh v. Bhola Singh, 1972 Rev Dec 350 a learned single Judge of this Court took the view that proceedings under S.20 of the Act could be started only after all the objections have been disposed of under S.9-A of the Act. A similar view was expressed by another learned single Judge in the case of Ganga Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1968 All WR (HC) 869. In Writ Petition No. 6605 of 1984, (Hasan Raza v. Collector/District Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad), however, a Division Bench of this Court by its judgement dated 7th December, 1984, expressed the view that there was nothing whatever either in the Act or the Scheme underlying the same which may warrant the conclusion that proceedings for allotment of chaks under Ss.19-A and 20 could be undertaken only after all the objections under S.9-A have been disposed of. It was held that proceedings for allotment of chaks could go on and final adjustments could be made therein in accordance with the decision on the objections filed under S.9-A which might have been pending at the stage of proceedings under Ss.19-A and 20. Similar observations were made by another Division Bench in the case of Ram Charan Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, (Writ Petition No. 849 of 1977) decided on 25th February, 1977.

(3.) Before dealing with the above controversy, we may briefly state the relevant facts which lie within a narrow compass. In respect of the disputed land the petitioner filed some objections under S.9 of the Act. The grievance is that without disposing of these objections the consolidation authorities have initiated proceedings for preparation and publication of the provisional Consolidation Scheme under Ss.19-A and 20 which, according to the petitioner, was not permissible. An application filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation requesting him to stay the proceedings for allotment of Chaks under Ss.19-A and 20 of the Act having failed to evoke any response the petitioner has had to approach this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the consolidation authorities not to initiate proceedings for allotment of chaks under S.20 until the petitioner's objection has been disposed of.