LexSURAJ PAL (D) THR. LR. versus RAM MANORATH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017) 8 S.C.R. 595 SURAJ PAL (D) THR. LR. v. RAM MANORATH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No .. 5883 of 2013) AUGUST 11, 2017 [MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.) A B Land laws - UP Consolidation of Holdings Act~ s.5(c)(ii) - Permission of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under. if required .before sale of thi suit property - Held: The intention of introducing C. s.5(c)(ii) was that if the land holding is subject to consolidation proceedings then permission of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is required before the same is transferred - This is so because if the land, which is subject matter of consolidation proceedings, is sold or permitted to be transferred during consolidation proceedings, it could affect the entire consolidation scheme - However. admittedly, D the suit property was used as 'Abadi' land and was declared "Chakout" and thus~ outside the purview of the consolidation scheme - Hence, no permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was required to sell t~e suit property in questibn. Review- Scope of- Held: If a court finds that it has committed E an error which is apparent on the face of record and that error is pointed out to it in a review petition, there is nothing which prevents the court from correcting the error - In the instant case, the Single Judge of High Co,urt did not iake into consideration the arguments • .raised that suit property was· 'chakout' and therefore, was not part F of the consolidation scheme - Therefore, the Single Judge was justified in reconsidering the matter. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. :i\,sfar as the scope of review is.concerned, if a . court finds that it iias committed an .error which is apparent on G the face of the record and that error is pointed out to it in a review petition, there is nothing which. prevents the.court from correcting the error. ln the judgment initial•y passed. by the Single .Judge of the High Court, the court did not take into c11nsideration the arguments raised that this portion of land was 'chakout' and 595 H 596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 8 S.C.R. . A therefore, was not part of the consolidation scheme. Therefore, the Single Judge was justified in reconsidering the matter. [Para 6) [598-BJ 2. The purpose of a consolidation scheme is to provide consolidation of agricultural holdings. Abadi land, groves etc. B are kept outside the scope of consolidation scheme. They cannot be re-allocated or re-allotted to any other person. Therefore, strictly speaking, they are not subject matter of the consolidation scheme. The intention of introducing Section 5(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was that if the land holding is subject to consolidation proceedings then permission of the Settlement C Officer (Consolidation) is required before the same is transferred. This is so because if the land, which is subject matter of consolidation proceedings, is sold or permitted to be transferred during consolidation proceedings, it could affect the entire consolidation scheme. However, if the land is not subject matter D of the consolidation scheme, though it may be part of the holding of the tenure holder, then no permission is required. Admittedly, the suit property was "Chakout" and outside the purview of the consolidation scheme inasmuch as its value could not be taken into consideration while framing the scheme and it could not be allocated or allotted to any other person. [Para 8) (598-F-H; 599- E A-BJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5883 of2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2007 in Review F Application No. 247459 of2006 in Second Appeal No. 1540of1982 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. G H Abhisth Kumar, Adv. for the Appellants. Yash Pal Dhingra, Shibahsish Misra, Ms. Mona K. Rajvanshi, Anurag Kashyap, Tajaswina Sagar, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DEEP AK GUPTA, J. I. The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Review Application No.247459 of 2006 in Second Appeal No. 1540 of 1982. SURAJ PAL (D) THR. LR. v. RAM MANORATH & ORS. 597 [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.] 2. The main issue which arises for consideration is whether A permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was required to be obtained in terms of Section 5( c )(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') before s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.