Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by Hon. K. C. Agarwal, J. I entirely agree. I would, however, like to make a few observations.
(2.) IN Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78 Hidayatullah, C. J., speaking for the Supreme Court, laid down that questions of the correctness of orders are for the decision of the authorities created by a statute, and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final, or there is an express prohibition under a particular Act. The last sub-section of S. 198 of the Zamindari Abolition Act declares that the orders of the Collector are, subject to a revision under S. 333, "final". This thus bars a suit or any other proceeding in a civil court. The order passed by the Collector or an order passed by the Board of Revenue in a revision filed against the order of the Collector, if any, gains finality between the parties. These orders settle and conclude the rights of the parties. As such the rights cannot subsequently be re-opened. Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act permits declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure-holders in respect of land lying in an area for which a notification has been issued under S. 4 (2). It also permits adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings. But both these matters are permitted "in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act". The section goes on to provide that the declaration or adjudication shall be made or done in accordance with the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(3.) UNDER section 8 the field book and the current annual register are revised and holdings are valued. UNDER S. 8-A the Statements of Principles are prepared, UNDER S. 9 the Assistant Consolidation Officer issues notice to the tenure-holder and other interested persons containing the relevant extracts from the annual register showing the rights and liabilities etc. UNDER sub-s. (2) of S.9 a right has been given to file an objection within 21 days of the receipt of the notice. Such objections are decided under S. 9-A by the Assistant Consolidation Officer by the process of reconciiation, and in case of dispute by the Consolidation Officer. UNDER sub-s. (8) of S. 9, the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation officer, acting under sub-section (2), are deemed to be a court of competent jurisdiction. Thus the Consolidation of Holdings Act provides a forum for the declaration or adjudication of rights in respect of land. It does not prescribe rights or liabilities. It postulates that the Consolidation officer shall decide the disputes with reference to existing law governing the rights of the parties. If he finds that in law the rights are already settled, he has to make a declaration to that effect, If he finds that the rights of the parties have already been adjudicated, and such adjudication has become final between them, he is bound to hold that the matter is not open for further adjudication. The provisions of the Zamindari Abolition Act lay down rules for admission of persons to land vesting in the Land Management Committee, and the grounds and the period of limitation within which such grants can be challenged. It created a special authority in the shape of the Collector to adjudicate such disputes. It then provides for a finality. All this shows that in this matter the Act creates a self-contained Code creating rights and indicating the manner of settlement of disputes. No other authority has jurisdiction to re-adjudicate matters covered thereby. The consolidation authorities have to recognise and respect the action of Land Management Committee or order of the Collector or Board of Revenue, if any, They cannot go behind them.;