Janardan Sahai - (1.) -In the basic year the respondents 3 to 6 were recorded. The petitioners are transferees of the respondents 3 to 6. Objections under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the respondent No. 2 Aram Shah and his brother Chandrapal. The objections were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. The appeal filed by Aram Shah was also dismissed. However the revision filed by Aram Shah was allowed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation by his order dated 2.4.1994 and it was held that Aram Shah and others had matured their rights by adverse possession. The present petition filed by the petitioners against the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation was dismissed on 17.11.2006. An application has been filed by the petitioners alleging that before the decision in the writ petition a notification under Section 6 (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued by the Slate Government on 19.7.2004 which had the effect of the consolidation operations ceasing and of the writ petition consequently becoming infructuous and that in this regard the petitioners had filed an application in the writ petition which was not disposed of hence the present application.
(2.) I have heard Sri R. R. Shivhare counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. S. Chauhan counsel for the respondents. Section 6 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act reads thus : 6. Cancellation of notification under Section 4 : "(1) It shall be lawful for the State Government at anytime to cancel the notification under Section 4 in respect of the whole or any part of the area specified therein. (2) Where a notification has been cancelled in respect of any unit under sub-section (1), such area shall, subject to the final orders relating to the correction of land records, if any, passed on or before the date of such cancellation, cease to be under consolidation operations with effect from the date of the cancellation." The contention of Sri Shivhare is that on the issuance of a notification under Section 6 (1) all orders including those in title disputes are set at naught and consolidation operations cease. Sri Shivhare submits that if Section 6 is interpreted as to mean that it saves final orders passed in title dispute cases but leaves pending title cases to be decided by regular suit, it would give rise to inconsistency. Sri Shivhare relies upon the 2nd proviso to Section 5 (2) which provides that on the cancellation of the notification under Section 4 by issuance of a notification under Section 6 the suits which had abated would revive and contends that this consequence would follow irrespective of the fact whether any final orders in a title dispute case have been passed. In support of his contention Sri Shivhare relied upon a decision of this Court in Jiwan Singh v. State of U. P., 1984 RD 110. In that case the notification under Section 6 (1) was issued after the final consolidation scheme and the correction of the records and the validity of that notification was challenged on the ground that the words 'at any time' have to be given a limited interpretation so as to confine them to apply to a stage prior to the stage of Section 30 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Upholding the contention it was held by this Court that a notification issued after final orders relating to correction of land records and after the stage of Section 30 of the Act was invalid because rights and title of the tenure-holders in the new chak had accrued and consequences envisaged in that section had become operative.
(3.) WHILE sub-section (1) of Section 6 deals with the power of the State Government to cancel the notification under Section 4 at anytime sub-section (2) to Section 6 deals with the effect a notification under Section 6 (1) would have upon the consolidation proceedings. It provides that the area shall cease to be under consolidation operations with effect from the date of the cancellation but this is subject to any final orders relating to correction of land records. The question which arises is whether the order passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation in a revision arising out of an objection under Section 9 is a final order relating to correction of land records. The words "orders relating to correction of land records" as used in Section 6 (2) are wide and would also cover orders passed in title disputes under Section 9A because these orders can direct change of basic year entries. It is therefore necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act which confer finality upon orders passed in title disputes in the consolidations proceedings. An order passed under Section 9A deciding an objection relating to title is appealable under Section 11. Sub-section (1) of Section 11 provides that the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation except as otherwise provided shall be final. A revision lies against the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to the Dy. Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act. It is thus clear that unless a revision is filed the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation passed under sub-section (1) of Section 11 shall be final. If a revision is filed the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation shall be final. The effect of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 6 envisaged in sub-section (2) is that the consolidation operations shall cease in the village subject to the decision of the appeal or where a revision has been preferred to the order in the revision. If the Legislature intended that all orders passed before issuance of the notification under Section 6 be set at naught it would not have specified in sub-section (2) that the consolidation operations shall cease in the area from the date of cancellation nor made the ceasure subject to final orders relating to correction of records passed before the date of the notification. When a notification under Section 4 (2) is published proceedings for correction of records and a suit or proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land shall on an order being passed by the Court where it is pending stand abated. The effect of the 2nd proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 5 is that on the issuance of notification under sub-section (1) of Section 6 an order of abatement shall stand vacated and the proceedings will revive. Reading this proviso with Section 6 (2) it appears that the revival of the proceedings contemplated is in cases where final orders have not been passed. In cases where final orders have been passed sub-section (2) of Section 6 itself provides that the ceasure of the consolidation operations will be subject to such final orders. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 6 and the second proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 5 have to be read together to determine their effect. Thus, read it is clear that it is only where final orders relating to correction of land records have not been passed that the proceedings of a pending suit in which an order of abatement had been passed shall stand revived. In cases where a final order relating to correction of land records has been passed the final order would not be affected by the notification under Section 6 (1) and provisions of Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act would become applicable. The decision in Jiwan Singh's case is distinguishable. The question there involved was about the stage when a notification under Section 6 (1) can be issued and not about the effect the notification would have upon final orders in the title proceedings. That apart a writ petition is not a continuity of the consolidation proceedings. The ceasure of the consolidation operations therefore docs not affect the maintainability of the writ petition against a final order in a title dispute and such a petition does not become infructuous on issuance of the notification under Section 6. The order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation in the revision had been passed long before the issuance of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. Issuance of the notification under sub-section (1) therefore has no effect upon the fate of the writ petition. The application is dismissed and no ground for recalling the order dismissing the writ petition is made out.;