Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order of our brother Tandon dated 18th of March, 1959. The parties reside in village Sardhana in the district of Meerut. Originally the plots in dispute were under the joint tenancy of Smt. Hardei and Smt. Brahma Devi. In July, 1943, Smt. Brahma Devi executed three pattas (leases) in favour of the petitioners (appellants) for a period of five years. Even after the expiry of those five years the appellants continued to remain in possession of the plots in dispute. On the date when the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the Act) came into force they were still in possession and under the provisions of that Act succeeded in obtaining a declaration in 1954 that they were the sirdars of the plots in dispute. The respondent No. 5 Surya Dev filed an objection under Sec. 240-G of the Act claiming to be entitled to the plots in dispute on the death of Raghubir Singh whom he alleged to be his adoptive father and who according to him was the last male member in possession of the plots in dispute. During the pendency of the objection of Surya Dev, consolidation of holdings operations started in village Sardhana with the result that the proceedings under Sec. 240-G of the Act were stayed. Proceedings under Section 8 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the C. H. Act) were started and the appellants who were already recorded as sirdars were recorded as such in those proceedings also. After the publication of the statement under Section 11 of the C. H. Act Surya Dev filed an objection under Section 12 of that Act. That objection was decided by the Consolidation Officer on 10-2-1957. The appellants took an appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and thereafter a revision application to the Deputy Director of Consolidation both of which failed and the claim of the appellants to be sirdars of the land in dispute was repelled by all those Courts. Thereafter the appellants filed a writ petition in this Court which has given rise to the present appeal.
(2.) The main contention in the writ petition was that inasmuch as a question relating to sirdari rights was involved, a question relating to title was involved and consequently under the provisions of Sec. 12(4) of the C.H. Act the matter should have been remitted to the Civil Judge for referring it to an arbitrator. The submission did not find favour with the learned single Judge who dismissed the writ petition as already mentioned above. Mr. Swami Dayal who has appeared for the appellants before us has made the same submission which was made before the learned single Judge, i.e., that the question relating to sirdari rights was a question of title and should have been remitted to the Civil Judge for being referred to an arbitrator. He has also added one more submission before us that the question whether or not Surya Dev was the adopted son of Raghubir Singh was a question which related to title and consequently on that ground also the matter should have been referred to an arbitrator. Having heard learned counsel we are of opinion that the submissions are without substance. It is true that originally there was no provision in the C.H. Act to the effect that a question relating to sirdari was not a question of title. By virtue of an amendment in 1957, Sec. 36-A was brought on the statute book. That section provides that whether or not a person is a sirdar of any land is not a question of title. Admittedly the objection under Section 12 (4) of the C.H. Act was filed before the consolidation authorities. The consolidation authorities as also the learned Single Judge held on the basis of the provisions of Sec. 332-A of the Act that the question relating to sirdari rights was not a question of title. Originally that section did not mention sirdari rights and was confined only to adhivasi and assami rights. However, by virtue of the amendment which came into force before the objection under Sec. 12(4) of the C. H. Act was decided, the word "Sirdar" was added and at the relevant time that provision was part of Sec. 332-A of the Act. That section reads as follows:- "332-A. Where in any suit or proceeding relating to land under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, a question is raised whether a person is or is not a sirdar. adhivasi or asami of any land it shall not deem to raise a question of title."
(3.) Learned Counsel contended that the provisions of Sec. 332-A of the Act could only govern cases filed under the provisions of the Act and could not be used for deciding cases under other Acts. This argument ignores the words "or under any other law for the time being in force" in Sec. 332-A. The C.H. Act was a law for the time being in force. In our judgment the view taken by the consolidation authorities was perfectly correct and the learned single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition.;