M. P. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) BOTH these petitions are connected and they can be disposed of by one common judgment. It is a case of co-tenure-holders. The notice under Sec. 10(2) of the Act was issued to the petitioners in the two petitions and objections were filed. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority and thereafter the matter went to the appellate court. The appellate court passed remand order one after another and the last such remand order dated 18-9-1978 was passed by the appellate court in the case of the petitioner Changu Ram, a true copy whereof is Annexure 7 to his petition. In the case of the petitioner Sita Ram the remand order was passed on the same date and its true copy is Annexure 2 to his petition Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority decided the two cases and his order is dated 11-9-1979 in the case of Changu Ram and a true copy thereof is Annexure 8 to his petition. In the case of Sita Ram also the Prescribed Authority decided the case on 11-9-1979 and a true copy of his order is Annexure 3 to Sita Ram's petition. There-after two separate appeals were filed by the said two tenure-holders and they decided by the appellate court by separate order both dated 18-3-1980. In the petition of Changu Ram a certified copy of the said order is Annexure 14 to this petition and in the case of Sita Ram it is Annexure 7 to his petition.
(2.) NOW both the petitioners have come up in these two separate but connected petitions and in support thereof, I have heard Sri R. R. K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and in opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. In the case of Changu Ram the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed that in plot no. 2243 of Khata No. 258 of village Piprahi, the said tenure-holder had only l/3rd share and that the Prescribed Authority and thereafter the appellate court were wrong in including the entire land of the said Khata in the holding of the said tenure-holder Changu Ram. The learned counsel in this connection placed reliance on the remand order dated 15-11-1976 a true copy whereof is Annexure 6 to Changu Ram's petition. In the said order it was held that Changu Ram had l/3rd share in all the Khatas. However, it has to be seen that there was a subsequent remand order, a true copy whereof is Annexure 7 to the said petition as stated above, and from the said remand order, it seems that the said tenure-holder raised the grievance about share in respect of Khata no. 13 alone and certainly not in respect of plot no. 2243 of Khata no. 258. The last remand order is the final order and will prevail over the earlier orders. Therefore, in view of the said order dated 18-9-1979, the Prescribed Authority was justified in carrying out the directions contained in the said remand order and in not allowing any controversy regarding the plot no. 2243 of Khata no. 258 to be raised. The appellate court was also, therefore, justified in rejecting the claim of the tenure-holder Changu Ram that he had only l/3rd share in the said plot no. 2243. The learned counsel next contended that the consolidation authorities had held that the petitioner Changu Ram's share in Khata no. 13 measured only 2 Bigha 12 Biswa 19 Biswansi and therefore, the Prescribed Authority and appellate court were wrong in including 6 Bigha 16 Biswa 7 Biswansi as the share of the said tenure-holder in the said Khata no. 13. It was admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the difference in the two figures was on account of certain adjudications done by the Consolidation Authorities, which touched the question of title in respect of the land of the said Khata no. 13. In my view, such adjudication by the Consolidation Authorities on the question of title could not be taken into consideration by the Ceiling Authorities as the adjudication was admittedly done after 8-6-1973, which is the material date under the Ceiling law. I should like to emphasise here that the question of reduction during the consolidation proceedings on account of the change in the plots and in consequence of the change in the valuation of the land is a controversy altogether different from the alleged reductions brought about due to adjudication of title by the Consolidation Authorities. Such title adjudications, if they are done after 8-6-1973, will have to be disregarded by the Ceiling Authorities. Therefore, in my view, this contention raised by the learned counsel is also untenable and is rejected.
(3.) IT was next contended that there had been some reduction of area in the Consolidation proceedings, not on account of title adjudication but due to other reasons and the same on the authority of Satyapal Singh v. State of U. P., 1979 AWC 217 should have been accepted even though such reduction in area was brought about after 8-6-1973. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Consolidation Authorities gave directions in respect of certain plots which were wrongly recorded and on a similar other grounds the area of the tenure holders stood reduced during consolidation proceedings. This point is common to both the petitions. IT has seemed to me that the appellate court did not have the benefit of the guidance which was laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Satyapal Singh's case (supra). IT may again be emphasised that the reduction of area of the tenure-holder in consolidation proceedings may come about due to various reasons. One reason may be that on an adjudication of title by the Consolidation Authorities between rival claimants, tenure-holder loses some land in the consolidation proceedings and thus there is a reduction of his area in the consolidation proceedings compared to what he held before the consolidation proceedings. The ceiling law does not grant any benefit to such a tenure-holder on account of such reduction during the consolidation proceedings brought about on account of the adjudication of title by the Consolidation Authorities, if such adjudication has taken place after 8-6-1973. However, very often reduction in the area of land during consolidation proceedings is brought about on account of the allotment of different plots with different valuations or on account of certain land of the tenure-holder being taken for public purposes etc. during the consolidation proceedings. The Division Bench in Satyapal Singh's case laid down that a tenure-holder should be entitled to the benefit of the reduction in the area during consolidation proceedings even if such reduction has taken place after 8-6-1973, because such reduction is brought about by the operation of law. In my view, the ratio laid down by the Division Bench should not be extended beyond that such as is warranted by the facts of that case. The facts of the said decision would not justify any inference that the reduction of area brought about after 8-6-1973 on account of title adjudication by the Consolidation Authorities should also be given effect to by the ceiling authority. This inference will be wholly against the scheme of the ceiling Act. Lastly, the learned counsel contended that rule 10 of the Ceiling Rules was not followed by the Prescribed Authority. He, however, conceded that if during the consolidation proceedings separate chaks have been allotted to the erstwhile co-tenure-holders, then this point will lose its relevance.;