V.K.SHUKLA J. - (1.) Brief background of the present reference in brief is that in Writ Petition No.52717 of 2013 (Ram Briksha and another v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others) name of petitioner stood recorded over the land in dispute since 1359 Fasli and in previous consolidation Ram Belash did not file any objection, claiming his rights and accordingly objection came forward that his objection in subsequent consolidation proceedings under Section 9 A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953, claiming right over the said land was barred under Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
(2.) The said objection in question was resisted by contending that Ram Vilas was the real brother of petitioner and was a co-sharer alongwith them as such bar contained under Section 49 of the Act would not apply.
(3.) Faced with this situation, the Learned Single Judge, as important point of law has been raised that would affect the public at large, made request for matter being placed before the Larger Bench and Hon'ble the Chief Justice was requested for formation of Bench. The reference in question contains following questions:- "(i) Whether use of words "could or ought to have been taken" in latter part of Section 49 of the Act, compulsorily forces the co-sharers, who are living jointly, peacefully and have no grievance against their father/brother/co-sharer, whose name is recorded in representative capacity, or they were willing to live jointly, due to situation of their family, i.e. (father and minor son), (mother and minor son), (brother and minor brother) and (some co-sharer was student and had gone abroad for study and fully depends upon other co-sharers) etc., to file an objection under Section 9 of the Act for separation of his share? (ii) Whether by operation of law, the parties can be thrown into litigation against their will/need and by not raising claim to land or partition and separation of the chak their right to property can be taken away in spite of protection available under Article 19 (1) (f) and now Article 300-A of the Constitution? (iii) Whether, in spite of well settled legal principle in respect of joint property, right of a co-sharer will come to an end under Section 49 of the Act, on the notification under Section 52, due to not claiming partition of his share and separate chak in his name, although, there had been no ouster from joint property?" ;