- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This matter is cognizable by the learned Single Judge as the writ petition has been filed against the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation exercising his revisional powers under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the 'act' ). The learned Single Judge while hearing the matter, expressed opinion that the matter is required to be heard by the Division Bench as it involved an important question of law. The learned Single Judge vide dated 11-1-1995 framed the question of law as to whether the Consolidation Officer was competent to decide the question of title in the grove land and the question of its partition amongst the co sharers. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 15th March, 1995 directed the matter to be placed before the Division Bench.
(2.) THE issue involved herein regarding the competence of the Consolidation Officer to adjudicate upon the title in land or grove or partition of shares amongst the co-sharers was dealt with by the learned Single Judge in Kaushar v. Ahmad Khan, 1962 ALJ 564, wherein it was observed as under : "the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, was placed on the statute book for providing for the consolidation of agricultural holding in Uttar Pradesh. THE scheme of consolidation could not possibly be successful unless all disputes relating to title in respect of different holdings in a village were first adjudicated upon, and decided finally between the parties. If that were not so, even after the consolidation of holdings has taken place, rival claimants would continue to agitate matters in respect of their rights and there was likely to be fragmentation of the holdings again as the disputes may be decided one way or the other. That is the main reason why the Act makes specific provision for the disposal of all disputes relating to questions of title in the course of the consolidation proceedings themselves. " (Emphasis added ). At a subsequent stage, the matter was referred to the Full Bench in Dalel & Anr. v. Baroo & Ors. , AIR 1967 Alld. 59, wherein the majority of the Hon'ble Judges considered the scheme of the Act and held as under : "sections 4 to 12, some of which have been summarised above, figures in Chapter II, which is headed "revision and Correction of Maps and Records". The said sections must, therefore, be held to provide a complete code for the disposal of objections arising at various stages in connection with the correction of maps and records of the local area concerned. There is nothing in these Sections to exclude grove- lands from their operation. On the contrary, the facts (1) that consolidation proceedings are in respect of a local area without exclusion of any land therefrom, and (2) that the word `land', which under Section 3 (5) also means land used for horticulture, i. e. , grove land, is used in sub-section (5) of Section 12, it is clear that an objection regarding title to grove land has also to be made under Section 12, and it is for that reason that all suits or proceedings in which a question of title of that nature is pending are required to be stayed. " (Emphasis added ). Such a view was found necessary in view of the fact that Section 49 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to take cognizance of a suit involving the question of title to land as that would be a matter in regard to which an application could be filed before the Consolidation Officer and if the Civil Court is granted power to deal with the matter, a long time may be taken and such issues may not be finalized which would frustrate the very purpose of consolidation.
(3.) THE question does arise as to whether in such a fact situation where the case is squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court, the reference is required to be answered or it is desirable to decide the issue by the Division Bench. There can be no dispute that the judgment of the larger Bench is binding on a smaller Bench. It is so required by judicial propriety and judicial discipline. (vide Union of India & Anr. v. K. S. Subramanian, AIR 1976 SC 2433; State of U. P. & Ors. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi, AIR 1976 SC 2547; Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, W. B. v. Dunlop India Ltd. & Ors. , AIR 1985 SC 330; Union of India & Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs. etc. , AIR 1989 SC 1933; N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr. , AIR 1989 SC 2027; General Manager Telecom v. A. Srinivasa Rao & Ors. , (1997) 8 SCC 767; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Mumbai Shramik Sangh, (2001) 4 SCC 448; N. S. Giri v. Corporation of City of Manglore & Ors. , AIR 1999 SC 1958; Sub- Inspector Roop Lal & Anr. v. Lt. Governor Delhi & Ors. , AIR 2000 SC 594; S. H. Rangappa v. State of Karnataka & Ors. , 1998 (2) JCLR 819 (SC) : (2002) 1 SCC 538; P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578; Union of India & Anr. v. Hansoli Devi & Ors. , (2002) 7 SCC 273; Babu Parasu Kaikadi (dead) by L. Rs. v. Babu (dead) by L. Rs. , AIR 2004 SC 754; and Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad v. Orient Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. , AIR 2004 SC 956 ).;