M.P.Singh - (1.) THE power to decide the validity of a lease deed executed by Land Management Committee always rests with the Additional Collector. THE consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same.
(2.) IN brief the facts are that the Land Management Committee executed a lease deed in favour of Dewa Ram, father of contesting respondent no. 2, on 16-4-1966. The possession of the land in dispute was also delivered to him. After the death of Dewa Ram, his son respondent no. 2 came in possession and still continues. The plots are :- Old number New number 1366 1077 1367 1064 1368 1367 After the notification under section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was published in the official Gazette, C. H. Form no. 5 was issued in which the possession of the petitioner mill was shown The petitioner filed an objection under section 9-A of the Act claiming Sirdari rights on the basis of the possession. Dewa Ram, father of respondent no. 2, also filed objections claiming sirdari rights on the basis of the lease deed executed by the Land Management Committee on 16-4-1966.
(3.) A large number of other objections were also filed but they are no more relevant. The only contest now is between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 19-4-1969 allowed the objections of the petitioner giving the benefit of section 7 (aa) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951). The remaining objections were rejected, including that of Dewa Ram. While doing so the Consolidation Officer recorded a clear finding that the lease deed executed in favour of Dewa Ram was collusive and illegal. The possession of Dewa Ram was also disbelieved. The effect of the order of the Consolidation Officer was that the lease deed executed in favour of Dewa Ram was deemed to have been cancelled.;