MOOL CHAND Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION
LAWS(SC)-1995-8-97
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
August 16,1995
MOOL CHAND
Appellant
VERSUS
DEPUTY DIRECTOR,CONSOLIDATION
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SATISH KUMAR V. LALTA TIWARI [APPROVED]VENKATA REDDY VS. PETHI REDDY [RELIED ON]
GYARSI BAI VS. DHANSUKH LAL [RELIED ON]
RAM ADHAR SINGH PETITIONER VS. RAMROOP SINGH [RELIED ON]
CHATTAR SINGH VS. THAKUR PRASAD SINGH [RELIED ON]
MUNSHI MUQBOOL RAZA VS. HASAN RAZA [RELIED ON]
SATYANARAYAN PRASAD SAH DINA NATH SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [RELIED ON]
BIBI RAHMANI KHATOON VS. HARKOO GOPE [RELIED ON]
SHANKAR BALWANT LOKHANDE DEAD VS. CHANDRAKANT SHANKAR LOKHANDE [RELIED ON]
Cited Judgements :-
SMITA CHAUDHRY VS. LT. COL. GAJ SINGH YADAV (RETD) [LAWS(DLH)-2023-12-165] [REFERRED TO]POSHAKI LAL VS. D D C BAREILLY [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-390] [REFERRED TO]
ABURVAKOUNDER (DIED) VS. BALAMURUGAN [LAWS(MAD)-2025-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
JUGUNA BAI VS. SARDAR SURJEET SINGH [LAWS(APH)-2007-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
MAHABEER VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU CONSOLIDATION COMMISSIONER, LUCKNOW AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-134] [REFERRED TO]
P ARUMUGAM AND ORS VS. P NARAYANSAMI AND ORS [LAWS(MAD)-2012-10-367] [REFERRED]
PREM VS. NANJE GOWDA [LAWS(KAR)-2002-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
SAICHANAKYA VS. PRITI TANDON [LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMIM FATIMA VS. MAHMOOD FATIMA [LAWS(ALL)-2013-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-135] [REFERRED TO]
SRI KENARAM DUTTA & ORS. VS. AMAL KUMAR BASU & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2017-12-249] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATARAO ANANTDEO JOSHI VS. SAU MALATIBAI [LAWS(SC)-2002-11-16] [REFERRED]
ISHAQUE MOHD & ORS VS. SAINI BEGAM [LAWS(MPH)-2005-12-112] [REFERRED]
KASTURI DEVI JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2010-4-50] [REFERRED TO]
JUGUNA BAI VS. SARDAR SURJEET SINGH [LAWS(APH)-2007-11-113] [REFERRED TO]
SOMASHEKAR D PATIL VS. D S PATIL [LAWS(KAR)-2009-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
SRI PRANBALLAB DEBNATH VS. MINATI DEBNATH [LAWS(TRIP)-2017-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
POSHAKI LAL VS. D D C BAREILLY [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-435] [REFERRED TO]
ADYA PRASAD VS. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MIRZAPUR & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-223] [REFERRED]
HARI LAL VS. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-286] [REFERRED TO]
RAN VIJAY SINGH VS. JAI RAJ [LAWS(HPH)-2018-1-61] [REFERRED TO]
ISHAQUE MOHAMMAD VS. SAINI BEGUM [LAWS(MPH)-2010-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA BAI PATEL VS. VIDHYAWATI PATEL [LAWS(MPH)-2008-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
M.A. MUJEEB VS. HABEEB ALLADIN [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-8-86] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMIM FATIMA VS. MAHMOOD FATIMA [LAWS(ALL)-2013-7-94] [REFERRED TO]
PASUPATI DUTTA VS. KALPANA DUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-2015-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAHIM MIAN VS. BIBI JAIBUNISHA [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR MANDIR COMMITTEE VS. SHRI KRISHNA BAHADUR CHETTRI [LAWS(SIK)-2016-7-4] [REFERRED]
PREMA VS. NANJE GOWDA [LAWS(SC)-2011-5-78] [REFERRED TO]
HABEEB ALIAS HABIBTAILOR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1995-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
SELVAMANI VS. CHELLAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2014-10-179] [REFERRED TO]
B.CHITTI BABU VS. C.ABILASH [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-273] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER KAUR VS. GAGANDEEP SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2016-4-57] [REFERRED TO]
PARAMOUNT CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VS. SIRAJUNNISA BEGUM [LAWS(APH)-1997-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
MOOTHEDATH G. JAIPALAN & ANR. VS. SANJIT K. ROY & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-1996-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
SANKARI MAITY VS. BIRENDRA NATH MAITY [LAWS(CAL)-1996-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
S. Saghir Ahmad, J. -
(1.)Since in these two appeals, common question of law relating to the abatement of suit or proceedings under Section 5(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'Act') is involved, both the appeals which were heard together, are being disposed of by this judgment.
(2.)In Civil Appeal No. 10214 of 1983, Plots Nos. 139 and 240 situate in Village Rampur, Pargana and Tehsil Hapur, District Meerut, were recorded in the basic year, in the name of the appellants against whom respondents 3 to 6 filed objections claiming co-tenancy but the appellants contested their claim and pleaded that they, namely, the appellants were exclusive tenure-holders of the aforesaid plots in which respondents 3 to 6 had no share.
(3.)The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 23rd January, 1973, dismissed the objections with the finding that respondents had no share in the plots but the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (for short, SOC), in appeal, allowed the claim of the respondents by judgment and order dated 12th July, 1973, which was also upheld by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (for short, DDC) by his judgment and order dated 17th September, 1973. The basis of judgments passed by the SOC and DDC was the preliminary decree passed on 17-9-80 in the suit for partition filed by the respondents. This suit while pending in the Board of Revenue was abated on account of Notification dt. 2-4-1994, issued under Sec. 4 of the Act. Still the SOC, DDC and the High Court followed the preliminary decree and, therefore, the question involved in this appeal is whether the preliminary decree would also abate if the suit is abated under Section 5(2) on account of Notification for consolidation operation issued under Sec. 4 of the Act.
(2.)In Civil Appeal No. 10214 of 1983, Plots Nos. 139 and 240 situate in Village Rampur, Pargana and Tehsil Hapur, District Meerut, were recorded in the basic year, in the name of the appellants against whom respondents 3 to 6 filed objections claiming co-tenancy but the appellants contested their claim and pleaded that they, namely, the appellants were exclusive tenure-holders of the aforesaid plots in which respondents 3 to 6 had no share.
(3.)The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 23rd January, 1973, dismissed the objections with the finding that respondents had no share in the plots but the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (for short, SOC), in appeal, allowed the claim of the respondents by judgment and order dated 12th July, 1973, which was also upheld by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (for short, DDC) by his judgment and order dated 17th September, 1973. The basis of judgments passed by the SOC and DDC was the preliminary decree passed on 17-9-80 in the suit for partition filed by the respondents. This suit while pending in the Board of Revenue was abated on account of Notification dt. 2-4-1994, issued under Sec. 4 of the Act. Still the SOC, DDC and the High Court followed the preliminary decree and, therefore, the question involved in this appeal is whether the preliminary decree would also abate if the suit is abated under Section 5(2) on account of Notification for consolidation operation issued under Sec. 4 of the Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.