SUGAN CHAND versus THE DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, DEHRADUN/SAHARANPUR, U. P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 290 · Decided: 02-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUGANCHAND 
v. 
THE DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, DEHRADUN/ 
SAHARANPUR, U.P. AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 2, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANON. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953: Section 5-Notification of 
consolidation-Effect on findings recorded in earlier suit-Held: the 
findings recorded in earlier suit are not wiped out-Consolidation 
authorities should rely upon the findings recorded by Civil Court unless 
contrary evidence is produced 
In a suit filed under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition 
Act, 1951 the Trial Court and the first Appelate Court recorded a 
finding as to possession in favour of the appellant. During the pendency 
of second appeal a notification regarding consolidation was published 
under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as a result of which 
the second appeal stood abated. However, in its proceedings the 
Consolidation Officer found the findings of the appellant's possession 
against him but on appeal the appellate authority held against the 
respondent and in favour of the appellant. In the revision filed· by the 
respondent, the Commissioner without adverting to the findings 
recorded by the Civil Court held that the appellant has not proved his 
possession • The order of the Commissioner was affirmed by the High 
Court against which an appeal was filed in this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: In view of the law laid down by this Court in Ram Prasad 
(dead) by Lrs. and Ors. v. Assistant Director of Consolidation and Ors., and 
in the absence of any consideration of the effect of the findings 
recorded by the civil courts, the order of the Commissioner is ex facie 
G 
illegal. It is accordingly set aside. The Commissioner is directed to go 
into the evidence vis-a-vis the evidence and the findings recorded in the 
civil suit and the appeals and to record his own findings and decide the 
matter according to law. [293 C) 
Ram Prasad (dead) by Lrs and Ors. v. Assistant Director of 
H 
Consolidation and Ors., [1994] Suppl. 2 S.C.C. 228, relied on. 
290 
SUGAN CHAND v. DY.DIR. OF CONSOLIDATION 
291 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICION: Civil Appeal No 9643of1994. 
A 
From the Judgement and Order dated 16-3-1994 of the Allahabad High 
CoUrt in C. Misc. W. P. No. 2372of1994. 
D. K. Garg for th~ Appellant 
B 
V. N. Ganpule, R. C. Gubrele, Ms. Punam Kumari and Ashok Kr. 
Singh for the Respondents. 
The following order of the Court was delivered: 
Substitution allowed. 
c 
Leave granted. 
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The inter se claim is for Plot 
Nos. 23, 67 and 78 in village Halwana Ahathal, In the suit filed by the 
appellant in the Court of S.D.O., Saharanpur, suit No. 1/ 1971-72 under 
Section 229-B ofU. P. Zamindari Abolition Act (Act 1 of 1951), the trial D 
Court recorded the finding in favour of the appellant thus : 
"Issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and. 4 are interconnected and may be 
taken up simultaneously. Issue No.5 relates to Smt. Nicho. 
Her heirship is not very relevant to these proceedings as E 
_ ~laim of defendant Shugan Chand is that he has acquired 
rights on the land in suit by operation oflaw, even if his 
possession was adverse. I find that plot nos.67 and 78 of the 
land in suit are entered-as Sirdari of defendant Shugan Chand 
alone since before the abolition of Zamindari, names of 
plaintiffs or their ancestors do not find place on these plots. F 
The possession of plaintiffs is also not entered anywhere on 
these numbers. Defendant Shugan Chand therefore rightly 
entered as sole sirdar over these plots and the plaintiffs have 
no concern over it." 
In Appeal No. 274/1972, the Additional Commissioner held thus: 
G 
"I am therefore of opinion that Shugan has been rightly held 
to be sole sirdars of thes~ plots, by the learned lower court. 
As regards the remaining plots namely Plot No.16/2, 70, 71, 
15, 76 are concerned these plots are recorded in the name of 
Jabal Singh, Harendra, Smt. Nichho as bhumidhars. In the H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
292 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP.·.6 S.C.R 
Khatauni of 1362 F by order of the S.D.O. dated 20.11.54 the 
name of Shugan Chand together with Jabal Singh and 
Harendra has been ordered to recorded as contenure and 
holder, samidar entries exists in subsequent khasras and 
khataunies. The main contention of the learned counsel of the 
appellant is that these entries are wrong as Shugan was not 
the heir of Smt. Nichho, as his father Atar Singh had 
predeceased Smt. Nichh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.