PRASHANT SINGH & ORS. ETC. versus MEENA & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 492 · Decided: 25-04-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 492 : 2024 INSC 380
Prashant Singh & Ors. Etc. 
v. 
Meena & Ors. Etc.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8743-8744 of 2014)
25 April 2024
[Surya Kant* and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the consolidation officer can grant ownership to any person 
in respect of a land/property inherited before commencement 
proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Headnotes
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – s. 49 – Whether 
the consolidation officer can grant ownership to a person in 
respect of a land/property:
Held: Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 
(“1953 Act”) is a provision of transitory suspension of jurisdiction of 
Civil or Revenue Court only during the period when consolidation 
proceedings are pending — Such suspension of jurisdiction of 
Civil or Revenue Court through the non obstante provision is only 
with respect to the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure 
holders — The duty of a Consolidation Officer under Section 49 of 
the 1953 Act is to prevent fragmentation and consolidate the different 
parcels of land of a tenure holder — The power under Section 49 
of the 1953 Act cannot be exercised to take away the vested title 
of a tenure holder — Kalyan Singh had acquired ancestral rights 
as a tenure holder – He was co-owner in the suit land much before 
the consolidation proceedings commenced — The only declaration 
and adjudication of rights of Ramji Lal or Kalyan Singh that a 
Consolidation Officer could undertake under Section 49 of the 
1953 Act was to avoid the fragmentation of their respective land 
holdings and consolidate or redistribute the parcels of land among 
them — The provision does not enable the Consolidation Officer 
to grant ownership to Ramji Lal in respect of a property, which, 
before the consolidation proceedings, never vested in him, vice 
versa, the Consolidation Officer could not take away the ownership 
rights of Kalyan Singh which he had already inherited much before 
the commencement of the consolidation proceedings — The order 
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
493
Prashant Singh & Ors. Etc. v. Meena & Ors. Etc.
passed by Consolidation Officer has rightly been held to be null 
and void and without any jurisdiction by High Court. [Paras 12,13]
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – s. 49 — Whether High 
Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the order 
of remand passed by the Board of Revenue for determination 
of the legal issue of maintainability.
Held: High court was correct in interfering in the Board of Revenue’s 
order — As once Kalyan Singh is held to be co-owner in the subject 
property, the exclusive possession of the land, if any, with Ramji 
Lal, was joint in nature — Kalyan Singh was already deemed to 
be in joint possession of the subject land in the eyes of law, hence 
he was not required to seek a decree of possession qua his share 
in the suit land. [Para 17]
Case Law Cited
Attar Singh v. State of U.P. [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 928; 
Amar Nath v. Kewla Devi [2014] 14 SCR 677 : (2014) 
11 SCC 273; Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed [1981] 
1 SCR 863 : (1980) 4 SCC 396 —relied on.
List of Acts
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; Specific Relief Act, 1963.
List of Keywords
Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; Exercise 
of power by Consolidation Officer under Section 49 of U.P. 
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; Usurping of power by 
Consolidation Officer.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.8743-8744 of 
2014
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.01.2013 of the High Court 
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in WP No.752 of 2007 and WP No.305 of 
2001 (Old No. WP No.22810 of 1989)
With
Civil Appeal No.8971 of 2014 and Contempt Petition (C) No.86 of 
2024 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8743-8744 of 2014
494
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
S.R. Singh, Kavin Gulati, Sr. Advs., Sushant Kumar Yadav, Ajay 
Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Gaurav Lomes, Prithvi Yadav, Anurag Singh, 
Dhroov Kumar Singh, Sanjiv Tandan, Ms. Swapnil Singh, Ms. Radha 
Rajput, Ankur Yadav, Yash Pal Dhingra, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, 
Rohit Amit Sthalekar, Purnendu Bajpai, Shashank Singh, Ms. Abha 
Jain, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Akshat Kumar, M.P. Parthiban, Tanmaya 
Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee, Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Vinayak Mohan, A. 
P. Mohanty, Mohith Sivakumar, Dushyant Sharma, Ankur Prakash, 
Mohd. Saquib Siddiqui, Amod Kumar Bidhuri, Ms. Srishti Kasana, 
M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.