B.N.Nigam, J. - (1.) Brij Raj Singh has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.2.1962 copy of which is annexure 5. The petitioner also claims a writ of mandamus commanding opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 to the dispose of the claim in accordance with law.
(2.) The petitioner alleges that he was a zamindar (prior to 30th June, 1952) of plots Nos. 254, 255, 256, 259, 267, 268, 269, 273, 309 and 323 in mohal Chak Qila, pergana Khairabad, district Sitapur. Plot No. 323 was a grove and the petitioner's bhumidhari. The other plots were held by him as a sirdar. He further alleged that the petitioner's name was recorded up to the year 1362 Fasli as a bhumidhar over plots Nos. 268 and 323 and over other plots as a sirdar. Plot No. 323 had, according to the assertions of the petitioner, been given to opposite-party No. 8Mauji Ram for Parwarish Darakhtan. Opposite-parties Nos. 5 and 6 Teji and Dwarka were the petitioner's servants and used to look after his cultivation. Opposite party No. 5 in collusion with the Patwari got himself entered over plots Nos. 259 and 309 and opposite party No. 6 over plots Nos. 255 and 256 as sub-tenants. The petitioner further alleged that opposite party No. 7 was his sub-tenant over plots Nos. 254,267,268,269 and 273 but he abandoned the plots and the petitioner was in possession of the plots from 1357F to 1366 Fasli. Under Section 240 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act opposite parties Nos. 5 to 8 were declared as adhivasi sirdars (perhaps the petitioner means that they were declared adhivasis and later declared sirdars). In April 1955 the petitioner filed an application for correction of papers. This application was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division who directed the petitioner that he should get his rights determined by a declaratory suit. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application before the Consolidation Officer, Khairabad. This application was dismissed on 2.10.1960. The first appeal, the second appeal and the revision against the order of the Consolidation Officer were dismissed by opposite parties 3, 2 and 1 respectively, the last order having been passed on 13.2.1962.
(3.) Only one contention has been urged before me. The argument of the learned counsel is that the Consolidation Courts did not determine the question of the title of the petitioner because they held that he had no right or title left in the property having failed to file an objection under Section 240-G of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The learned counsel urges that under Section 240-J the statement becomes final. The argument of the learned counsel is that this finality attaches only to the compensation proposals. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel. Section 240-J clearly lays down that the statement so signed and sealed shall become final. This can refer only to the statement under Section 240-D. That statement is to contain the names of the landholder and the rent paid at hereditary rates if the land referred to in Section 240-A was recorded as sir, khudkasht or fixed rate tenancy of the landholder or included in the holding of a person belonging to any of the classes mentioned in clause (d) of Section 18 or included in the holding of a person belonging to any of the classes mentioned in Section 19 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In case the land referred to in the notification was land other than that mentioned in Clause (b), the rent mentioned shall be the rent payable by the tenant. This compensation statement is for the purpose of compensation and payment of compensation for acquisition of rights, title and interest of the landholder in the land referred to in Section 240-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Section 240-G allows any person interested to file objection upon this statement and Section 240-H clearly indicates that the objection may be of the nature of the grounds mentioned in sub-Section 2(a) or 2(b). Here we are concerned with sub-Section 2(a) of Section 240-H. That sub-Section lays down:- "Where the objection filed under sub-Section (1) (a) is that the land is not land referred to in sub-Section (1) of Section 240-A, the Compensation Officer shall frame an issue to that effect and refer it for disposal to the Court which would have jurisdiction to decide a suit under Section 229-B read with Section 234-A in respect of the land.....";