- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri S. P. Misra, learned standing counsel has filed compliance report stating therein that possession has been taken on 30. 11. 2007. Exactly a similar application was filed by Vikram Singh. This application has been filed by Saudan Singh and Mahendra Singh. All these three persons were appellants before Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as applicants before Deputy Director of Consolidation. In this application it ought to have been mentioned that a similar application filed by Vikram Singh has been rejected.
(2.) THIS application is liable to be dismissed on the same ground on which earlier application by Vikram Singh was dismissed on 4. 12. 2007. However, learned counsel for the applicant has cited an authority in Babooram v. 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basti. 1978 ALJ LOC 52, regarding Explanation I to Section 5 (6) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, which is substantially similar with Explanation II to Section 5 (1) considered in my order dated 4. 12. 2007. Explanation I to Section 5 (6) is quoted below: (Explanation I.-For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression 'transfer to land made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971', includes- [ (a) a declaration of a person as a co-tenure-holder made after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971 in a suit or proceeding irrespective of whether such suit or proceeding was pending on or was instituted after the twenty-fourth day of January, 1971; (b) any admission, acknowledgment, relinquishment or declaration in favour of a person to the like effect, made in any other deed or instrument or in any other manner. ] Clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation/suggest that declaration should relate to the pre-existing claim. Normally word declaration is not used for fresh rights; it is used for pre-existing rights. Further Clause (b) of the said Explanation refers to admission and acknowledgment etc. which will normally refer to pre-existing right. The aforesaid single Judge authority of Babu Ram stands impliedly overruled by Full Bench authority of Ram Charan v. State of U. P. . AIR 1979 All 114, decided on 19. 9. 1978. Taking note of the aforesaid Explanation in paragraphs 33 to 39 of the aforesaid Full Bench authority it has been held that decision of consolidation Courts given after 24. 1. 1971 in respect of declaration of right in any manner are to be ignored. First sentence of para 34 of the aforesaid Full Bench authority is quoted below: The existence of a decree of a Court, or a deed of transfer or licence even recognised by Court or even authorities under the Consolidation Act, will be of no avail. " In the aforesaid single Judge authority of Babu Ram it was held that a preexisting right recognised by consolidation courts was not hit by the Explanation to Section 5 (6) of the Act. In the aforesaid paragraph of the Full Bench it has categorically been held that even a right recognised by Consolidation Court will be of no avail. Similarly in Changu Ram V. IIIrd A. D. J. . 1981 AWC 677, placing reliance upon Division Bench authority of Satya Prasad Singh v. State of U. P. . 1979 AWC 217, it has been held that If reduction in area during consolidation proceedings takes place on account of changed valuation of existing and subsequently allotted plots even after 8. 6. 1973 then the same has to be taken into consideration but no reduction in area is to be taken into consideration if it is the result of title adjudication. Same view has been taken in Chandradhar Prasad Narain Singh v. State of U. P. , 1998 (89) RD 424: 1998 (2) AWC 1356.
(3.) MOREOVER the appeal was filed after 40 years and delay was condoned almost by consent. The respondent in appeal, i. e. , the petitioner did not contest the delay condonation application before Settlement Officer of Consolidation inasmuch as he did not file any counter-affidavit. Order of the revisional court mentioning the said fact dated 20. 11. 2007 has been shown to the Court. (Delay was refused to be condoned by S. O. C. However, revisional court condoned the same by setting aside the order of S. O. C. And remanding the matter to S. O. C. to decide on merit. MOREOVER as mentioned in my order dated 4. 12. 2007 it was amply clear from the record itself that the applicants were hand in glove with Ramveer Singh petitioner. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application it is therefore, rejected. However, the direction in my order dated 20. 12. 2007 that applicants must show cause as to why proceedings for perjury must not be initiated against them is withdrawn. No further action in this regard is required to be taken. .;