LexFAQIR (DEAD) THROUGH SHYAM DEO versus KISHORI @ LALLOO AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
FAQIR (DEAD) THROUGH SHYAM DEO v. KISHORI @ LALLOO AND ANR. APRIL 25, 1995 [KULDIP SINGH, N. VENKATACHALA AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] U.P. Consolidation of Ho!iings Act, 1953: A B Ss.4, 9-A(2}-Consolidation Proceedings-Objections-Revenue entries C sought to be co"ected on basis of decree passed by civil cowt in a suit for injunction or in the alternative for possession filed in 1954-Held, in view of provisions of S.331 and Schedule II to UP._ Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, as they stood at the time of filing of suit, the suit could be filed only in civil court and not in revenue court-Consolidation Courts not justified in ignoring the decree. D U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950: Ss.208, 209, 331 and Schedule II (as it stood prior to U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 18 of 1956}-Cognizance of suits etc.-Held, prior E to amendment by Amendment Act 18 of 1956, suits covered under ss.208 and 209 could be filed only in civil court and not in revenue court-Amendment did not affect pending suits, or rights of appeal, review or revision available under original provision. On commencement of proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Con· F solidation of Holdings Act 1953, the plots in dispnte were fonnd recorded in the name of the appellant. The respondent filed objections under s.9A(2) of the Act contending that the land was his sir and khudkast even before the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and on the date of vesting, he became its bhumidhar; since the appellant was trying to interfere with the possession of the respondent, he G filed a civil suit on 5.1.1954 for permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession over the land in dispute; the suit was dismissed by the trial court but the appellate court decreed the snit and the respondent obtained "Dakhal Dehani"; the second appeal and the special appeal filed by the appellant were dismissed by the High Court, and the said decree operated H 745 746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R. A as res- judicata. It was further stated that iuspite of the decree and "dakhal dehani", revenue entries continued in the name of the appellant and, therefore, the respondent had to file a suit under s.229-B of the ZA & LR Act for declaration of his bhumidhari rights and for expunction of entries in favour of the appellant, but the suit abated as meanwhile the land in B dispute was brought under consolidation operations. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objections of the respondent. Being unsuccessful before the appellate authority and in the revision, the respondent filed a writ petition before ihe High Court, which allowed his claim and quashed the judgment and order passed by the Consolidation Officer with the direction that the entries existing in favonr of the appellant in respect of C the land in dispute be expunged. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the appeal by special leave. It was contended for the appellant that the High Court erred in not following the decision of this Court in Chandrika Misr's* case which laid D down that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the nature involved in that case in respect of agricultural lands and that such a suit could be filed only before the Revenue Court. The respondent supported the judgment of the High Court stating that, apart from the decision in Chandrika Misr's case being based on concession, the relevant E F provisions of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act relating to the jurisdiction of the civil or revenue courts were not brought to the notice of the Court and as such it was a judgment rendered per incuriam and bad no binding effect. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. In view of the provisions contained in s.331 as also in Schedule Il to the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as they stood then (i.e. on 5.1.1954, the date on which the respondent filed the snit), the suit could be filed only in the civil court and not in the revenne G court. Consequently, the decree passed in that suit by the trial court which was npheld by the lower appellate court as also by the High Court was binding on the appellant against whom the suit was filed and the consolida- tion courts were not justified in ignoring the decree on the ground that this Court in Chandrika Misr's case had laid down that a suit under s.209 could be filed only in the revenu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.