K. B. Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS spe cial appeal arises out of consolidation pro ceedings.
(2.) ONE Bhikham bad two sons, Ram Ratan (father of the five appellants Shyam Sunder, Ram Shankar, Raja Ram, Sheo Ram and Sheo Govind) and Sia Ram, res pondent No. 1. The name of Ram Ratan stood recorded in respect of Khatas Nos. 329 and 330, situate in village Bharwara, in the district of Lucknow. On his death, the names of his five sons came to be recorded. When this village came under Consolida tion operations, Sia Ram filed an objection under Section 9 (2), U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming co-tenancy rights to the ex tent of one-half in these two Khatas on the ground that the name of Ram Ratan came to be recorded originally because he was the elder brother and though his own name was not recorded, he still had his co tenancy rights intact because of his cultiva-tory possession. His objection was dismis sed by the Consolidation Officer and his appeal against that was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. He then preferred a revision which was allow ed by the Deputy Director, Con solidation and it was ordered that his name should also be recorded along with the names of the five appellants, as a co-tenant in the two Kha tas. The appellants then filed Writ Petition No. 633 of 1965 which was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court, giving rise to this special appeal. The learned counsel for the ap pellants has challenged the constitutionality of the Act on various grounds, of which the following have been urged before us:- (1) Sections 4 and 6 of the Act give arbitrary powers to the State Government to accord discriminatory treatment to tenure-holders in different villages by placing some villages under consolidation while excluding others, thus offending Article 14 of the Con stitution. (2) Sections 5, 7 and 8 of the Act pro vide a procedure for the correction and re vision of Revenue records for villages under consolidation, which is vitally different from that applicable to villages not under con solidation, and there is thus discrimination which offends Article 14 of the Constitu tion. (3) Sections 5, 9, 9-A and 49 of the Act confer arbitrary powers on the Conso lidation authorities under which they can deprive a tenure-holder of his land or rights therein and the tenure-holder has been de prived of the protection of Courts available to other tenure-holders in village not under consolidation, thus creating discrimination which offends Article 14 of the Constitu tion.
(3.) WE will now deal with these matters. The Act was passed, as the Pre amble says, to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings for the develop ment of agriculture. The object has also been succinctly stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons. A clear picture of the background history leading to the en actment of the statute in question, also emerges from the discussion by their Lord ships of the Supreme Court in Attar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959;