HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Click here to view full judgement.
D.S. Mathur, J. -
(1.)THE only point urged before me is that the reference under Section 12(4) of the then U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act could be stayed Under Section 22(2) only upon the making of a reference Under Sub -section (1) of Section 22 of the Act, and not upon the publication of the Statement of Proposals under Sub -section (1) of Section 20, and consequently the lower appellate court has committed an illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction. Reliance was placed upon the case of Tila Devi v. Consolidation Officer, Faizabad and Ors. (1) (1964 ALJ 919). The following observations made therein make it clear that the decision was based upon the old law, and not Section 22(2) as amended under U.P. Act No. XVI of 1957:
...and Sub -section (2) provided that upon the making of such reference all suits or proceedings in the court of first instance, appeal, reference or revision in which the question of title in relation to the same land had been raised should be stayed.
The material part of Section 22(2) prior to the amendment in 1957 was 'upon the making of reference Under Sub -section (1)" and after the amendment it is "upon the publication of the Statement of Proposals Under Sub -section (1) of Section 20. When the law was substantially changed, any decision based upon the old law can no longer be applicable, and it cannot be relied upon as a precedent.
(2.)IN the circumstances, the lower appellate court took the correct view of Section 22(2). The revision has thus no force, and it is hereby dismissed. Costs on parties.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.