U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – s. 49 – Whether the consolidation officer can grant ownership to a person in respect of a land/property:
Held: Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (“1953 Act”) is a provision of transitory suspension of jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Court only during the period when consolidation proceedings are pending — Such suspension of jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Court through the non obstante provision is only with respect to the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders — The duty of a Consolidation Officer under Section 49 of the 1953 Act is to prevent fragmentation and consolidate the different parcels of land of a tenure holder — The power under Section 49 of the 1953 Act cannot be exercised to take away the vested title of a tenure holder — Kalyan Singh had acquired ancestral rights as a tenure holder – He was co-owner in the suit land much before the consolidation proceedings commenced — The only declaration and adjudication of rights of Ramji Lal or Kalyan Singh that a Consolidation Officer could undertake under Section 49 of the 1953 Act was to avoid the fragmentation of their respective land holdings and consolidate or redistribute the parcels of land among them — The provision does not enable the Consolidation Officer to grant ownership to Ramji Lal in respect of a property, which, before the consolidation proceedings, never vested in him, vice versa, the Consolidation Officer could not take away the ownership rights of Kalyan Singh which he had already inherited much before the commencement of the consolidation proceedings — The order passed by Consolidation Officer has rightly been held to be null and void and without any jurisdiction by High Court. [Paras 12,13] U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – s. 49 — Whether High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the order of remand passed by the Board of Revenue for determination of the legal issue of maintainability.
Held: High court was correct in interfering in the Board of Revenue’s order — As once Kalyan Singh is held to be co-owner in the subject property, the exclusive possession of the land, if any, with Ramji Lal, was joint in nature — Kalyan Singh was already deemed to be in joint possession of the subject land in the eyes of law, hence he was not required to seek a decree of possession qua his share in the suit land. [Para 17]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.