PREMVATI Vs. HARNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for cancellation and adjudging void the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated June 5, 1975 passed in a revision under Sec. 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, issue no. 2 was whether the suit is barred by Sec. 49 of the Consolidation Act. The trial court answered this issue by holding that the suit is so barred. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has come to this court in revision.

(2.) The plaintiff had come to court on the allegation that fraud was played and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was, as such, void. Sec. 49 cannot apply to such a situation. It provides that declaration and adjudication of rights in respect of land shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceedings with respect to rights in such land. The present suit is not for declaration of rights in land. It is for declaration of the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The second part of Sec. 49 relates to any other matter in respect of which any proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act. I find no provision in the Consolidation Act which permits re-adjudication of the Deputy Director of Consolidation's order. No power to review has been conferred on the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Sec. 27 of the Act, after its amendment by U.P. Act No. XII of 1965, provides that all entries in the record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. The distinction is clear. After 1965, the entries made in consequence of the Deputy Director of Consolidation's order are not final and conclusive. They are liable to be disapproved. This hence does not prevent institution of a suit in regular courts to disapprove the entries. Sec. 27 itself contemplates that after the issuance of the notification under Sec. 52, the Collector shall do the work of maintaining the record of rights. Thus, there is no provision in the Act debarring such a suit.

(3.) The revision succeeds and is all necessary for the trial court to go into the question as to whether in the circumstances of the case, service of summons on the defendants by publication in the newspaper Sanmarg was regular and whether such a service can be said to be due service within the meaning of the expression as used in rule 13. The defendants are clearly dis entitled to claim the relief prayed for by them because of the second proviso to Or. IX rule 13 as added in this State.