SITA RAM versus CHHOTA BHONDEY AND OTHERS

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 184 · Decided: 09-10-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SITA RAM 
v. 
CHHOTA BHONDEY AND OTHERS 
OCTOBER 9, i990 
(P.B. SAWANT AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
U.P. Consolidation. of Holdings Act, 1953: Sections 4(2), 5(2) 
and 49-Declaration and adjudication of tenure holders-Whether falls 
within scope of adjudicatory functions of consolidation authorities. 
In the course of consolidation proceedings under the U.P. Con-
e solidation of Holdings Act, 1953, questions arose amongst the members 
of a family regarding the title to certain properties. Respondent No. 1 
filed objections to the original entries in respect of lands in Khata 
No. 72 and 73 on the basis that he was the son of Chhota, one of the sons 
of Teja, the common ancestor. Similarly, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed 
D objections claiming shares in the lands in Khata No. 73 on the ground 
that the said holding was jointly acquired but was recorded in the name 
of Nanha in a representative character. The _appellant contested the 
claims of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 
The objections were considered by the Consolidation Officer, who 
E 
held that respondent No. 1 was the son of Heera_alias Chhota, brother 
of Nanha, and granted him his share in certain plots of the Khata 
No. 73. The appellant as well as respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed appeals 
against the said order of the Consolidation Officer. The Assistant Settle-
ment Officer (Consolidation) allowed the appeal of the appellant and 
directed that lands in Khata No. 73 will be continued in the name of the 
F 
appellant alone. 
The respondents went in rev1s1on against the order of the 
Assistant Settlement Officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation 
allowed the revision of respondent No. 1 in full in respect of share in 
Khata No. 72. As regards plots in Khata No. 73 the Deputy Director 
G 
held that the name of Nanha was entered only in a representative 
capacity. 
H 
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge 
the decision of the Dtiputy Director of Consolidation which was dismis-
sed in limine. 
; I, 
184 
SITA RAM '· C. BHONDEY 
185 
The appellant, thereafter, filed the civil suit for a declaration that 
the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was without juris-
diction. Contesting the suit, respondent No. I raised a preliminary 
objection that the suit was barred by section 49 of the Act. The Munslff 
decided the preliminary objection in favour of respondent No. 1. The 
Additional District and Sessions Judge In appeal, affirmed the order of 
the Munsiff. The second appelll filed by the appeUant was dismissed by 
the High Court in lirnine. 
-
Before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that 
A 
B 
the bar of section 49 of the Act was not applicable to the suit of the 
appellant because the orders passed by ihe consolidation authorities 
were without jurisdiction inasmuch as the consolidation authoi;ities 
could not decide questions as to title to the lands as well as the que'stion 
C 
relating to the parentage of respondent No. 1 which the civil coons 
alone could decide. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: (1) The language used in section 49 of the U .P. Consolida-
tion of Holdings Act, 1953 is wide and comprehensive. Declaration and 
adjudication Of rights of tenure-holders in respect of land lying in the 
area covered by the notification under section 4(2) of the Act and 
adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings 
D 
and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken 
E 
under the Act, would cover adjudication of questions as to title In 
respect of the said lands. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of the civil or 
revenue courts to entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights 
in such land or with respect to any other matter for which a proceeding could 
or ought to have been taken under lite Act has been taken away. [1890-E; Cl 
Suba Singh v. Mahendra Singh and Others, [1974) 1 SCC 418; 
Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh, [1974] 1 S4!:R 339, referred 
to. 
(2) In the instant case, respondent No. 1 was clahning an interest 
F 
in the land lying In the area covered by the notification issued under 
G 
section 4(2) on the basis that he was the son of Chhota, brother of 
Nanha, and that the lands were recorded in the name of Nanha in a 
representative capacity on behalf of himself and his other brothers. 
This claim which fell within the ambit of section 5(2) had to be 
adjudicated by the ·consolidation authorities under the Act, and t

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