DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, AZAMGARH versus DEEN BANDHU RAI

Citation: [1964] 4 S.C.R. 560 · Decided: 23-08-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Directions issued

Judgment (excerpt)

19'3 
August 23 
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1%4] 
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, 
AZAMGARH 
v. 
DEEN BANDHU RAI 
(S. K. DAs, AcTING C. J., K. SuBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J. R. MuoHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Consolidation of Holdings-Application for permission to trans-
fer-Grounds of reiection by Settlement Officer-U.P. Consolida-
dation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act No. V of 1954), ss. 13, H, 
15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 23. 
The four respondents made two applications to the Settlement 
Officer Consolidation, for permission under sub-s. ( 1) of s. l 6A 
for the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 for transfer by 
way of exchange of certain plots in 11 villages. The proceedings for 
consolidation were in progress in all the 11 villages. The settle-
ment officer refused the permission under sub-section (2) of s. 16A 
of the Act and the same was confirmed by the Deputy Director 
of Consolidation. 
The respondents ch•llenged the said orde" of 
Consolidation authorities in a writ petition filed before the High 
Court. 
The learned single judge dismissed the petition but the 
respondents succeeded in a special appeal before the division bench. 
The Division Bench held that s. 16A(2) of the Act was man-
datory. Under it the Settlement Officer is bound to grant permis-
sion to respondents as the exchange was not likely to defeat the 
scheme· of corisolidation and they directed the Settlement Officer 
to pass an order keeping in view the aforesaid principles. 
The 
Deputy Director of 
Consolidation 
preferred 
this appeal with 
Special leave. 
Held: (1) that where an application for transfer fell within 
the terms of s. 16A(l) i.e., where it was filed at the stage referred 
to in it, the settlement officer is enjoined to allow the application 
unless the proposed transfer is likely 
to 
defeat the scheme of 
consolidation. 
(2) that if there happened to be conflict between "a principle" 
as formulated under s. 18 or a concrete "proposal" as confirmed 
under s. 23 on the one hand and the transfer prayed for on the 
other, the settlement officer would be entitled to refuse the per-
mission to transfer under section 16A(2) of the Act but otherwise 
the application for transfer would be allowed if it satisfied the 
conditions laid down under s. 16A(l) and 16A(2) of the Act. It 
is for the settlement officer to decide whether such conflicts exist 
or not. 
(3) that the direction of the learned Judges of Division Bench 
to the Settlement Officer was not .in accordance with the provi-
sion of s. 16A(2) read with other relevant provisions of the Act. 
-
-
4 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
561 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuiUSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 483 
of 1%3. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree 
dated Mach 19, 1%2 of the Allahabad High Court in Sep-
cial Appeal No. 56 of 1%1. 
C. B. Agarwala, K. B. Garg and C. P. Lal, for the 
appellants. 
f. P. Goyal, for the respondents. 
August 23, 1%3. The Judgment of the Court was de-
Jhrered by 
AYYANGAR J.-Section 16-A of the U.P. Consolidation 
of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act No. V of 1954), which 
for brevity we shall refer to as the Act as it stood at the 
relevant date, enacted : 
"16-A. (1) After the publication of the statement under 
section 16 and until the issue of a notification under 
seccion 52, a tenure-holder shall not, except with the 
permission in writing of the Settlement Officer (Con-
solidation) previously obtained, transfer by way of sale, 
gift or exchange any plot or share in any holding in-
cluded in the scheme of consolidation notwithstanding 
anything contained in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition 
and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 
(2) The Settlement Officer shall grant the permission 
referred to in sub-section ( 1) unless for reasons to be 
recorded in writing he is satisfied that the proposed 
transfer is likely to defeat the scheme of consolidation." 
The four respondents before us made two applications to 
the Settlement Officer Consolidation, for permission under 
sub-s. ( 1) of the above provision for transfer by way of 
exchange of certain plots in 11 villages which were includ-
ded in schemes of consolidation in those several villages 
in which such proceedings were taking place. The officer, 
however, refused the permission sought under sub-s.(2) 
and his decision was affirmed on an application by way 
of revision filed by the respondents, by the Deputy Direc-
tor of Consolidation. Challenging the lagality of the said 
orders of the Conso

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