U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act Does Not Bar Civil Court Jurisdiction To Determine Ownership Rights: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, cannot be construed as a bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine the ownership rights.
The court said that ownership rights to property inherited much before the commencement of the consolidation proceedings cannot be taken away under the
Justice Surya Kant and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha observed, "The power to declare the ownership in an immovable property can be exercised only by a Civil Court save and except when such jurisdiction is barred expressly or by implication under a law. Section 49 of the 1953 Act does not and cannot be construed as a bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine the ownership rights."
Sr. Advocate S.R. Singh represented the appellants, while Sr. Advocate Kavin Gulati appeared for the respondents.
The consolidation proceedings which were initiated in the late 50s/early 60s in accordance with the provisions of the Act, led to the removal of the names of one of the co-sharer of the suit property from the ownership entry of the revenue record by a Consolidation Officer.
After the name of the co-sharer was expunged from the records and his “civil death” was declared, another party to the suit started claiming to be the sole owner of the entire land. However, the co-sharer then instituted a suit in 1985 for the declaration of his half-share in the suit property, which was decreed in his favour.
The other party argued that after the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, attained finality, the co-sharer lost his right, title or interest in the subject land. It was also contended that not only the subsequent suit filed by the co-sharer was expressly precluded, but such a suit was also “hopelessly time barred.”
The co-sharer on the other hand argued that neither Section 49 of the Act was attracted in the case nor was the Consolidation Officer competent to “rob off” the co-sharer of his ancestral right as a tenure holder on the subject land.
The Court noted that Section 49 of the Act contemplated a bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil or Revenue Court for the grant of declaration or adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land lying in an area for which consolidation proceedings had commenced. Secondly, Section 49 of the Act was a provision of “transitory suspension” of the jurisdiction of the Civil or Revenue Court only during the period when consolidation proceedings were pending.
The court said: “It is not difficult to explain that Kalyan Singh had acquired ancestral rights as a tenure holder. He was co-owner in the suit land much before the consolidation proceedings commenced. Hence, 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 Court held that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was rightly held to be null and void, without any jurisdiction, and was passed “usurping a power fraudulently.”
Cause Title: Prashant Singh & Ors. v. Meena & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 380)
Appearance:
Appellants: Sr. Advocate S.R. Singh; AOR Ankur Yadav, Yash Pal Dhingra, Asha Gopalan Nair, Rohit Amit Sthalekar; Advocates Sushant Kumar Yadav, Ajay Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Gaurav Lomes, Prithvi Yadav, Anurag Singh, Dhroov Kumar Singh, Sanjiv Tandan, Swapnil Singh, Radha Rajput, Purnendu Bajpai and Shashank Singh
Respondents: Sr. Advocate Kavin Gulati; AOR Abha Jain, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Akshat Kumar, M.P. Parthiban, Tanmaya Agarwal, A. P. Mohanty and Rohit Amit Sthalekar; Advocates Wrick Chatterjee, Aditi Agarwal, Vinayak Mohan, Mohith Sivakumar, Dushyant Sharma, Purnendu Bajpai, Shashank Singh, Mohd. Saquib Siddiqui, Amod Kumar Bidhuri, Srishti Kasana, Priyanka Singh, Yudhister Bharadwaj and Jyoti Sharma