R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) SEVENTEEN years of litigation once before the Civil Judge acting as arbitrator, once before the Tahsildar, twice before Sub-Divisional Officer and this court have not settled the dispute between the parties started on an objection filed under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood prior to its amendment before 1963.
(2.) THE question, on facts, which are more or less admitted, is whether Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer by virtue of Rule 109-A of Consolidation of Holdings Rules are empowered to decide an objection regarding title, pending on the date of notification issued under Section 52(1) of the Act. On 8-2-1962 the Civil Judge being of the view that he had no jurisdiction sent the records to Consolidation Officer. The village was denotified some time in 1962. The objection of the opposite party claiming to be sole sirdar was allowed exparte on 31-12-1965 by the opposite party No. 2 (Tahsildar). The appeal against this order was set aside by this court and the appellate court (Sub-Divisional Officer) was directed to decide the application under Section 5 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On remand the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, but the order of opposite party No. 2 was affirmed on merits. A notification issued under Section 52 operated as a ceasure of consolidation operations in the village. Subsection (2) added in 1963, however, creates exception in pending proceedings and further enable implementation of order passed in writs of courts of competent jurisdiction by such authority as may be prescribed.
(3.) THAT the objection, appeal or proceeding pending on the date of deno-tification shall continue to be decided has been put beyond doubt by a series of decisions of this court-Jiwa Ram v. Deputy Director Consolidation, 1973 AWR 419, R. R. Basant Singh v. Deputy Director Consolidation, 1969 RD 42 and Om Prakash v. Saiyed Husain, 1968 RD 460. The question raised is whether opposite party No. 2 appointed under rule 109-A is an authority only to execute the orders or is an authority competent to decide the objection. Sub-rule (1) of rule 109-A reads : "(1) Orders passed in cases covered by sub-section (2) of Section 52 shall be given effect to by the consolidation authorities authorised in this behalf under sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Act by the Collector of the district in his capacity as a District Deputy Director if such authorities are f unctioning in any part of the district at the time. In case there be no such authority the Assistant Collector, incharge of the Sub-Division, the Tehsildar, the Naib-Tahsildar, the Supervisor Kanungo and the Lekhpal of the area to which the case relates shall, respectively, perform the functions and discharge the duties of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Consolidation Officer, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Consolidator and the Consolidation Lekhpal respectively for the purpose of giving effect to the orders aforesaid." The rule comes into play only to give effect to orders passed in cases covered under Section 52 (2). The latter part of the sub-rule permitting certain authorities, other than consolidation authorities, to discharge the duties of Settlement Officer, Consolidation Officer has to be read along with the earlier part. ;