TULSI RAM Vs. THE DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION MEERUT AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1965-10-31
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 15,1965

TULSI RAM Appellant
VERSUS
The Director Of Consolidation Meerut And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LALA NANAKCHAND V/S. THE BOARD OF REVENUE [REFERRED TO]
NANHOO MAI V/S. MULOO AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
AMBA PRASAD V/S. MAHBOOB ALI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K.B. Asthana, J. - (1.)By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution certain orders passed by the Consolidation authorities in proceedings initiated Under Sec. 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter called the Act) have been brought up for being quashed by a writ of certiorari.
(2.)Tulsiram, who is the Petitioner, claimed that the disputed holdings were his joint Sirdari along with certain other persons who are not party to this writ petition inasmuch as they were the recorded occupants in the Khasra of 1356F and acquired Adhivasi rights Under Sec. 20(b) of the UPZA and LR. Act (hereinafter called the Abolition Act The opposite parties numbers 5 to 12 to this petition set up a rival claim that they were settled as tenants in the disputed holdings by the Zamindars and they being recorded as such in the revenue lepers and Wing in actual cultivatory possession in 1359F, acquired Adhivasi rights under the Tenancy laws and became Sirdar under the Abolition Act. The disputed holdings were the Sir of the Zamindars. It appears that the Petitioner and some other persons were the tenants of that land. The Zamindar brought a suit under 175/179 of the U.P. Tenancy Act for the ejectment of the Petitioner and others. This suit was decreed and in rectify of the decree for ejectment the Petitioner and others were ejected on 23.6. 1948 and the Zamindars got actual possession. Thereafter the Zamindars settled the disputed holdings with the contesting opposite parties Nos. 5 to 12 who came into possession of the same and immediately the date preceding the date of vesting under the Abolition Act were in actual cultivatory possession. The Petitioner appears to have filed a suit under Sec. 20/232 of the UPZA and LR Act for being restored to possession of the holdings as an Adhivasi and the proceedings in this suit were pending when the village in which the disputed holding stood' came under consolidation operations under the Act. Rival claims put forward by the Petitioner and the contusing opposite parties were then determined by the Consolidation officer. The Consolidation Officer held that it were the contesting opposite parties who were the Sirdars being in possession of the disputed holdings ever alter the ejectment of the Petitioner and others on 23.6.1948. The Consolidation Officer held that the Petitioner and the other claimants had not been able to establish that they became Adhivasi under Sec. 20(b) of the Abolition Act. The Petitioner and other persons who claimed co birdari rights with him then went up in appeal from the order of the Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved Appellants, which included the Petitioner, then went up in second appeal. The Deputy Director of Consolidation who heard the second appeal dismissed it. The Petitioner and his co Appellants then went up in revision before the Director against the second appellate order of the Deputy Director. The Director dismissed the revision. The Petitioner alone now has come to this Court and challenges the validity of the above said orders of the Consolidation authorities.
(3.)At the hearing, on behalf of the contesting opposite parties numbers 5 to 12 Sri K.C. Agarwal, their learned Counsel, raised a preliminary objection that the petition was incompetent inasmuch as neither the other persons who claimed to be co sirdars along with the Petitioner have joined this petition as Petitioners nor has the Petitioner impleaded them formally as Respondents. I do not find any substance, whatsoever, in this objection. This writ petition under Article 226 is substantially one for a writ of certiorari. All the necessary parties have been impleaded, namely, Director of Consolidation, the Deputy Director, the Settlement Officer and the Consolidation Officer. All the proper parties have also, been impleaded who are contesting Respondents numbers 5 to 12 represented by Sri K.C. Agarwal. I do not think the other persons who claimed co Sirdari rights along with the Petitioner to the disputed holdings were necessary parties or proper parties to this petition. The consideration which prevail in appeals from decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure to my mind, do not wholly apply in respect of impleading of parties in writ petitions. The fundamental principle seems to be that all those parties mast be brought before this Court who would be affected by the orders passed by this Court if the writ petition succeeded, so as to afford them a hearing. I do not see how the persons who claimed co Sirdari rights along with the Petitioner would be affected if any order is passed in this petition. Moreover, it appears to me that the Rules of the Court under Chapter 22 leave ample power with this Court to hear any person who appears to the court to be a proper person to be heard notwithstanding that he had not been served with notice. This shows that non impleading of a party is not such a matter as to be fatal to the maintainability of a petition under Article 226.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.