MOOL CHAND AND ORS versus DY. DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION AND ORS

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 763 · Decided: 16-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, S. SAGHIR AHMAD

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
... 
_, 
MOOL CHAND AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
DY. DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. 
AUGUST 16, 1995 
[S.C. AGRAWAL ANDS. SAGHIR AHMED, JJ.] 
B 
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1967: 
Sections 4, 5(2}-Issue of consolidation notification-Abatement of 
pending suits or proceedings-Relating only to declaration of right or interest C 
in the land lying in the consolidation area-Whether abated. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Sections 2(2), 97, Order XX Rule 18, Order XXVI Rules 13 and 
14-U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 5.4 and 5.5(2)-Effect of notifica-
D 
tion-Preliminary decree-No appeal pendin~Would remain unaffected and 
would not abate-However, proceedings relating to final decree would abate. 
In Civil Appeal No. 10214 of 1983, plots in dispute were recorded in 
the basic year, in the name of the appellants against which respondents 3 
to 6 filed objections claiming co-tenancy but the appellants contested their 
claim and pleaded that they were exclusive tenure-holders of the aforesaid 
plots in which respondents 3 to 6 had no share. 
E 
The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objections with the finding 
that respondents had no share in the plots but the Settlement Officer, F 
Consolidation, in appeal, allowed the claim of the respondents, which was 
also upheld by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The basis of judg-
ments passed by the Settlement Officer and the Deputy Director was the 
preliminary partition in the suit for decree passed filed by the respondents. 
This suit while pending in the Board of Revenue abated under section 5(2) G 
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on a account of Notification 
under Sec. 4 of the said Act. Still the authorities and the High Court 
.followed the preliminary decree and, therefore, the question involved in 
this appeal was whether the preliminary decree would also abate if the suit 
had abated u/s 5(2) of the Act on account of Notification for consolidation 
operation issued under Sec. 4 of the Act. 
763 
H 
764 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
In Civil Appeal No. 2635of1980 it was found by the Deputy Director 
B 
c 
that the respondents had filed a suit under Section 176 of the U.P. 
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for partition of their 2/3rd 
share in the holding which was decreed.and the appeals which were filed 
against the preliminary decree by the appellants were dismissed. The Writ 
Petition filed in the High Court was also dismissed. Proceedings for 
preparation of final decree were then initiated in the Court of the Judicial 
Officer who passed the final decree for partition but the appellants chal-
lenged the final decree in appeal during the pendency of which the village 
was notified for consolidation operations and consequently the Additional 
Commissioner abated the appeal as also the suit. 
On behalf of the appellants in C.A. No. 10214 of 1983 it was con-
tended that the village having been notified under Section 4 of the Act, the 
suit which was pending before the Board of Revenue abated in view of 
Section 5(2) of the Act; and that the effect of abatement was that the 
judgment and the decree passed by the Revenue Courts became non-exis-
D 
tent. Similar was the contention of the respondents in C.A. No. 2635 of 
1980. 
On behalf of the respondents in C.A.10214of1983 and the appellant 
in C.A. No. 2635 of 1980 it was contended that in a suit for partition in 
E 
which two decrees, viz., a preliminary decree and a final decree are passed 
has to be distinguished from an ordinary suit in which only one decree is 
passed, and that in the instant cases the effect of Section 5(2) of the Act 
was to affect the proceedings for preparation for final decree which were 
pending and not the preliminary decree since it had attained finality. 
F 
Allowing Civil Appeal No. 2635 of 1980 and dismissing Civil Appeal 
No. 10214 of 1983, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. On the publication of the notification under Section 4 
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, suits of proceedings relating to 
G declaration of right or interest in the land lying in the consolidated area 
stand abated under Section 5(2). This abatement takes place on an order 
passed in that behalf by the Court or Authority before whom suc.h suit or 
proceedings were pending. [768-C] 
1.2. The definition of "decree" contained in Section 2(2) read with the 
H provisions contained in Order 20 Rules 18(2) as also Order 26 Rule 14 of 
I 
.. 
-<. 
MOOL CHAND v. DY. DIRECTOR CONSO

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