PRITAM SINGH Vs. ASSTT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court:-A learned Judge of this Court has referred this writ petition for decision to a larger Bench as he felt that the single Judge pronouncement made in Trivent Singh v. State of U. P., 1961 RD 58, might require reconsideration and as he also felt that the controversy involved in this petition 'is of considerable importance and is likely to occur frequently.'

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are these. In the basic year the land in dispute stood recorded in the names of the petitioners. It may be stated that the basic year was 1969 as the notification Trivent Singh v. State of U. P., 1961 RD 58 58 of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was issued on May 17, 1969. THE petitioners were recorded as Bhumidhars of the plot in question. An objection was filed by the Gaon Sabha, respondent no. 4, before us, claiming that the land constituted Gaon Sabha property and the petitioners' names were wrongly recorded as the Bhumidhars of the land. Contest was joined by the petitioners who claimed to have purchased the land in dispute by a sale deed which was executed in their favour on 1-5-1956 by Gur Bux Singh and Har Bhajan Singh who were alleged to have acquired sirdari rights by adverse possession and who, after having acquired sirdari rights, deposited ten times rental and became Bhumidhars of the land in dispute and thereafter executed the aforesaid sale deed dated 1-5-1959. THE Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of the Gaon Sabha on 21-2-70. An appeal was filed against the said order by the petitioners before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). THE said appellate authority came to the conclusion by order dated 22-8-70 that the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha as the recorded tenants had abandoned the same as was evident from the extract of 1359F. He, however, remanded the case in order to give the petitioners a further opportunity for producing evidence to prove that their vendors, Gur Bux Singh and Bhajan Singh, had acquired sirdari rights on account of their adverse possession. In the order of remand the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) not only recorded a categorical finding that the recorded tenants had abandoned the land in dispute and that it had vested in the Gaon Sabha, but also made a direction to the Consolipation Officer to decide the case after remand strictly in the light of the observations made by him. THE observations made by him were that in case the petitioners failed to prove that their vendors had acquired sirdari rights before they deposited ten times rent, their claim would be liable to be dismissed inasmuch as in that event no title would accrue to them on the basis of the afore-mentioned sale deed. THE petitioners did not file any revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the said remand order dated 22-8-70 passed by the appellate authority.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioners the orders passed by the consolidation authorities have been attacked before us on two main grounds: (1) It is contended that as there were no pleadings regarding abandonment and no issue was struck on the said question, therefore, the finding recorded by the consolidation authorities that the land in dispute was abandoned by the recorded tenants should be held to be a nullity. (2) It is contended that the consolidation authorities were wrong in holding that the petitioners could not question the finding regarding abandonment on the ground that they had not earlier filed a revision against the remand order dated 22-8-70 which was passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) when he heard the appeal against the first order dated 21-2-70 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Counsel's contention is that even though no revision had been filed earlier against the said remand order, still, the petitioners were not debarred from questioning the finding regarding abandonment recorded by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in his remand order. It was claimed that it was open to the petitioners to question the said findings before the Consolidation Officer when he re-heard the case after remand and, in any case, the petitioners could question the said finding in the revision which was ultimately filed by them before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The said authorities erred in law in not entertaining the said objection.