RAM ADHAR Vs. LOCHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff-decree-holders second appeal in a proceeding for execution of a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the judgment-debtor-respondents from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the land in suit. The trial court found that the judgment-debtor-respondents had ample opportunity to obey the decree but they had wilfully failed to do so and ordered the detention of the judgment-debtors in civil prison for six months under O. 21 R. 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment-debtors appeal therefrom was allowed by the lower appellate court on the finding that the decree for injunction had been rendered infructuous by the course of the proceedings in the consolidation of holdings operations in the village as a result of which the judgment-debtors were held to be the tenure-holders in possession of the land in suit.

(2.) The primary facts may now be stated. The suit giving rise to the execution proceedings was decreed on 17th April, 1953, the first appeal therefrom was dismissed on 14th March, 1957 and the second appeal was dismissed on 20th Nov., 1964. The execution application was filed on 1st April, 1966. The judgment-debtors filed an objection on 30th July, 1966 pleading that in the consolidation of holdings operations the decree-holder was found not to have any right in the land in suit and the decree of the civil court had become ineffective and un-executable. In the consolidation of holdings operations the statement of plots and tenure-holders was published on 27th June, 1957 under Sec. 11 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by U. P. Act No. 38 of 1958. The time for filing objections to the entries contained in the statement as prescribed by Sec. 12 of the Act as it then stood was 30 days from the date of the publication of the statement. It accordingly expired on 27th July, 1957. The decree-holder-appellant did not file any objection within the prescribed period of limitation. His objection was dismissed as time barred by the Consolidation Officers order dated 6th May, 1958. The appeal therefrom was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 27th June, 1958. The decree-holder then filed an objection under Sec. 20 of the Act to the statement of proposals prepared under Sec. 19 of the Act as it then stood. That objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 7th March, 1959. The objection was dismissed on the grounds that the objection involved a question of title and ought to have been raised under Sec. 12 of the Act and was, therefore, not maintainable at the stage of proceeding under Sec. 20 of the Act. It was further found that the statement of proposals under Sec. 20 had been published in the village on 8th Aug., 1958 and the objection was belated without there being any sufficient ground for condoning the delay. The appeal from that order was dismissed on 20th Jan., 1960.

(3.) On these facts it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the entries in the record of right prepared by the consolidation authorities were final and conclusive under Sec. 27 (2) of the Act as it then stood, and that being so the foundation of the decree of injunction under execution, namely, the finding that the plaintiff-decree-holder was the bhumidhar of the land in suit had disappeared-The land being a grove, it was not subject to re-arrangement of holdings in such a way as to make the holdings of the tenure-holders concerned more compact and, therefore, there was no question of any delivery of possession under consolidation proceedings but the judgment-debtor respondents having been finally found to be the tenure-holders of the land by the consolidation authorities, they must also be deemed to be in lawful possession of the land.