PREETAM SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 310 · Decided: 09-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Remitted to Lower Court
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
PREETAM SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
v. 
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. 
JANUARY 9, 1996 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908/U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act/U.P. 
Zamindari Abolition Act, 1952. : 
Sections 11, 105/S.4/S.2-Bhoomidari rights-O~iected to by the Gaon 
Sabha-Consolidation Officer ordering exp unction of the names of the parties 
from revenue records-On appeal Settlement officer remanding the matter to 
the Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision-Consolidation Officer again 
passing same order-Further appeal-Dismissal of-Revision--Rejection 
of-High Court's finding that remand order became .final as it was not inde-
pendently challenged--Held : Decision on merit covering the entire contra-
versy was due.fromAssistant Director (Consolidation~Hence 1natter remitted 
back to him for fresh decision of the entire matter in accordance with law. 
Jasraj Inder Singh v. Hemraj Multanchand, [1977] 2 SCC 155 and 
Smt. Sukhram' (dead) by LRs. and others v. Hari Shanker and Others, [1979] 
2 sec 463, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2252 of 1978. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.1.78 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 2353 of 1972. 
Pramod Swarup for the Appellant 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal is by certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court. A 
division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 2-1-1978 dismissed the 
writ petition of the appellants. The question of law arising therein related to 
the finality of an order of remand containing findings, recorded by an 
intermediate court during consolidation proceedings. The principles of 
Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and those contained in Section 105 
thereof were found attracted in the case. 
310 
. ..
',. 
" 
J 
i 
• 
• 
... 
... ... 
) 
PREETAM SINGH BY LRS. '· ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 
311 
Regretfully we do not have the assistance of the respondents, who even 
A 
though served have not put in appearance. They are therefore proceeded 
against ex-parte. 
On May 17, 1969, a Notification under Section 4 of the U.P. 
Consolidation of Holdings Act was published in the U.P. Gazette for bringing 
about consolidation of holdings in the village where the land in dispute is 
situate. In the year in which the village came under consolidation (known 
as the basic year), the appellants were recorded as Bhoomidars over a holding 
measuring 38.25 acres and also being in its possession. The Gaon Sabha of 
B 
the village filed an objection under the provisions of the Act before the 
consolidation Officer alleging that the appellants were wrongly rejected as 
C 
Bhoomidars over the disputed land and prayed that entries be corrected in 
favour of the Gaon Sabha. The appellants contested the objections before the 
Consolidation Officer. Their case was that the land in dispute was under the 
!errancy of some people when the U.P. Zarnindari Abolition Act was in force. 
The same did not vest in the Gaon Sabha as unoccupied land. The Ashudhi 
D 
Tehsildar during the correction of the records operation found Gurbux Singh 
and Harbhajan Singh in possession of the land in dispute and ordered them 
to be recorded as Seerdars by order dated 25--7-1957. On the basis of such 
corrected records Gurbux Singh and Harbhajan Singh obtained Bhoomidari 
rights under the provisions of the U .P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1952. On 
1.6.1959, those Bhoomidars sold the land to the appellants and thereafter the 
names of the appellants as Bhoomidars were recorded in the revenue records, 
continuously till consolidation operations commenced. 
The Consolidation Officer sustained the objection of the Gaon Sabha 
E 
by his order dated 21-2-1970 ordering expunction of the na.'lles of the 
F 
appellants from the revenue records. The appellants' appeal before the 
Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was allowed on 22-8-1970. A remand was 
effected to the Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision, after giving an 
opportunity to the appellants to prove that they had even acquired ownership 
rights by adverse possession. On the ground of the appellants being owners 
G 
by purchase the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) observed that the dis-
puted land had vested in the Gaon Sabha, as apparently the tenants had 
abandoned the land without creating any rights in favour of the predecessors-
in-title of the appellants and sequally non
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.