ATTAR SINGH & OTHERS versus THE STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 928 · Decided: 17-12-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1958 
}Jaji Mohammad 
Ekramul llaq 
-V. 
Tlie Slate of 
IVest Bengal 
J{apur ]. 
December z7. 
928 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
premises No. 9 Chittaranjan Avenue to the other build-
ing which the Government had also requisitioned. 
This will work out to Rs. 3,175. In the circumstances 
Rs. 3,200 per mensem would be a fair compensation 
and we would therefore enhance the compensation to 
that figure and the appeal would be allowed to that 
extent. 
· 
Although the appellant has not succeeded in getting 
the whole of his claim decreed, there is no reason for 
depriving him of his costs proportionate to his success. 
We accordingly allow proportionate costs. 
Appeal partly allowed. 
ATTAR SINGH & OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF U. P. 
(S. R. DAS, c. J., N. H. BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA, 
K. SuBBA RAO and K. N. WANOHOO, JJ.) 
1
ricultural .Holdings, Consoli<fation of-Constitutional vali-
dity o enactment-Procedure, if _discriminatory-U.P. Consolida-
tio11 o Holdings Act (U.P. V of r954) as amended by Act No. XV.( 
of r957, ss. 8, 9, IO, r4 to r7, r9 to 22, 49-Constilution of India, 
Arts. r4, 3r(2). 
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity oi the 
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (U.P. V of 1954), as amend-
ed by the amending Acts, which was intended to encourage the 
development of agriculture by the allotment of compact areas to 
tenure-holders in lieu of scattered plots so that large-scale culti-
vation might be j)Qssible with all its attendant advantages. A 
notification was issued under s. 4 of the impugned Act declaring 
the decision of the State Government to formulate a scheme of 
consolidation in respect of the area where the petitioners held 
their lands. This was followed up by a statement of proposals 
under s. 19. The petitioners objected to these proposals and 
thereafter appealed to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) but 
to no effect. It was contended, inter alia, on their behalf that 
(1) the provisions of ss. 8, 9 and IO read with those of s. 49 of the 
impugned Act were discriminatory in that they laid down a 
procedure for correction and revision of revenue records for 
(l) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
929 
villages under consolidation that was vitally different from that 
z958 
applicable to other villages under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 
1901 ; (2) that ss. 14 to 17 as also ss. 19 to 22 read with s. 49 con-
Attar Singh 
ferred arbitrary powers on the consolidation authorities in respect 
and Others 
of the lands of the tenure-holder and his rights therein and 
v. 
deprived him of the protection of courts available to other tenure Th• State of u. P. 
holders and that (3) s. 29B which provided for compensation, by 
giving inadequate compensation, offended Art. 31(2) of the Con-
stitution. 
Held, that the contentions must fail. 
Although the procedure laid down by the impugned Act was 
to some extent different from that under the U.P. Revenue Act, 
r901. it was by no means arbitrary or devoid of natural justice. 
Regard being had to the advantages that consolidation conferred 
on the tenure-holder such difference was supportable as a per-
missible classification on an intelligible differentia reasonably 
connected with the object of the Act. The expeditious procedure 
for effectuating consolidation laid down by ch. II of the Act 
read with the Rules, therefore, could not be said to violate Art. 
14 of the Constitution. 
Nor could for similar reasons the provisions of ch. III of the 
Act be said to violate Art. 14 of the Constitution. The provision 
of s. 22(2) of the Act which made the decision of the arbitrator 
final by ousting the jurisdiction of ordinary courts even where a 
party had obtained a decree which might be under appeal, was 
necessary in the interest of expedition. 
Having regard to the peculiar conditions in cases of this 
kind and the advantages a scheme of consolidation offered to 
the entire body of tenure-holders, it could not be said that the 
cash compensation for tenure holders provided by s. 29B of the 
impugned Act was inadequate, even assuming that Art. 31(2) 
applied to the case. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 
Writ Petition No. 119 of 
1957. 
Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution 
of India for the enforcement of :Fundamental Rights. 
Achhru Ram, J.P. Goyal and K. L. Mehta, for the 
petitioners. 
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, 
K. L. Misra, Advocate-General for the State of U. P. 
and Gopi Nath Dixit, for the respondent. 
1958. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.