K.C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS case has come up before us in a Full Bench by reason of a reference made by on of us (Satish Chandra, J.) for decision on the following two questions: 1. Whether the consolidation authorities can validly direct the name of the Gaon Sabha or the State Government to be recorded when they find that there is no valid title holder and that under the law, the land had vested in the State Government and then in the Gaon Sabha; even though the Government or the Gaon Sabha has not filed an objection.
(2.) WHETHER Section 11C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act operates retrospectively so as to validate orders passed by consolidation authorities prior to the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 34 of 1974, directing the names of the Gaon Sabha or the State Government etc. to be recorded over plots which had, in law, vested in them. 2. The facts leading to the reference are these: One Smt. Ram Kali, was, admittedly, the bhumidhar of khata No. 69 of village Sikandarpur, district Moradabad. In the basic year the aforesaid Khata was entered in the names of Har Swarup and Har Kishan as bhumidhars. It, however, contained a note to the effect that in pursuance of an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Moradabad, in Case No. 18, the names of Amir Husain and others, the Petitioners, had to be recorded as Sirdars over the land of this Khata. Har Swarup and Har Kishan filed an objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (briefly stated as 'the Act'), claiming that having purchased the land through a registered sale deed from Smt. Ram Kali they became the bhumidhars of the disputed land and as Amir Husain, and others had no concern with the land in dispute their names could not be recorded in the revenue papers. The objection was resisted by Amir Husain and others on the ground, interalia, that they were in possession of the land in dispute since long and, therefore, by virtue of their possession they had acquired the rights of sirdars under Section 210 of UP ZA and LR Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. I of 1950), (briefly stated as U.P. Act I of 1950). The Consolidation Officer finding that neither Har Swarup nor Har Kishan nor Amir Husain had any right; over the land in dispute, directed that the land be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha concerned. The order of the Consolidation Officer was maintained by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in appeal preferred before him under Section 11 of the Act and, thereafter, in revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation filed under Section 48 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, Amir Husain filed the present writ petition in this Court. The main controversy raised in the writ petition was that since the Gaon Sabha had not filed any objection, the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to direct that the land be entered as Gaon Sabha property. In support of this plea, the Petitioners placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gaon Sabha v. Noor Mohammad, 1974 RD 350. Controverting the submission, counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha relied on a decision of another Division Bench decision in Gaon Sabha v. Sanman Singh, 1973 AWR 596. Finding that the questions raised by the counsel for the parties were of general importance, the learned Single Judge made the present reference.
(3.) TO understand and consider the submission made by the learned Counsel, it will be useful if we refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and their extent and scope. It will also be necessary to refer to some of the provisions of U.P. Act I of 1950 in this regard. The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was passed to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings in Uttar Pradesh for development of agriculture. It is a self contained special enactment dealing with the matters relating to consolidation. On a declaration made by the State Government by means of a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, the consolidation authorities are empowered to enter upon and survey as well as to do all necessary acts to ascertain suitability of the area for consolidation. After revision of maps and Annual Register under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, the consolidation authorities publish in the unit the current khasra and the current Annual Register under Section 9 of the Act showing the rights of persons who are found to be in possession. An entry made under this provision is known as entry of the basic year. Under Sub -section (2) of Section 9, any person to whom a notice under Sub -section (1) has been sent, or any other person interested, is entitled to file an objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer in respect of the entry made under Sub -section (1) of Section 9 disputing its correctness or nature. Section 9A deals with the disposal of cases relating to land and partition. Under Section 10, Annual Register is revised on the basis of orders passed under Sub -sections (1) and (2) of Section 9A. Section 11 confers a right of appeal on a person aggrieved by an order passed under Section 9A. Section 11A imposes a bar of further objections. This section reads as under: No question in respect of - (i) claims to land, (ii) partition of joint holdings, and (iii) valuation of plots, trees, wells and other improvements, where the question is sought to be raised by a tenure holder of the plot or the owner of the tree, well or other improvements recorded in the annual register under Section 10, relating to the consolidation area, which might or ought to have been raised under Section 9, but has not been so raised shall be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings.;