Randhir Singh & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1097 & 1098 of 1979
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.77 of the Allahabad High Court in S.A. Nos. 1047-48 of 1970)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.77 of the Allahabad High Court in S.A. Nos. 1047-48 of 1970)
Petitioner: Randhir Singh & Ors.
Respondent: Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1097 & 1098 of 1979
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.77 of the Allahabad High Court in S.A. Nos. 1047-48 of 1970)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.77 of the Allahabad High Court in S.A. Nos. 1047-48 of 1970)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & D.P. WADHWA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 01, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. T.N. Singh, Mr. B.M. Sharma and Mr. S.N. Singh, Advocates for the appellants.
Head Note:
LAND LAW
U.P. Consolidation of holdings Act
Section 3 (5)- Held building occupying land and used for commercial purpose are not covered under section 3 (5) and High Court has rightly left the dispute open.
U.P. Consolidation of holdings Act
Section 3 (5)- Held building occupying land and used for commercial purpose are not covered under section 3 (5) and High Court has rightly left the dispute open.
U.P. Land Reform Act, 1950
Held whether such lands vest in State on abolition of the estate is a matter to be left open as State is not a party to proceedings – Appellants may get the matter adjudicated in appropriate proceedings. Appeal dismissed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, made on 30.11.1977 in Special Appeal Nos.1047 & 1048 of 1970.
2. It is not necessary to dilate upon the three-tier history of the litigation. Suffice it to state that pursuant to the remand order made by the High Court in the last instance, the Deputy Director has gone into the question whether the Settlement Officer under the Consolidation Act has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Section 3(5) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act defines “land” to mean the land held or occupied for the purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry which includes pissiculture and poultry form and also the site, being part of a holding, of a house of other similar structures.
3. In view of the above definition under Section 3(5) of the Consolidation Act, the buildings occupying the land and used for commercial purposes are not covered by the Act. Therefore, the High Court had left the dispute open for a decision by the appropriate Court.
4. It is an admitted position that the appellants and the respondents are holding heats in those areas. Under the U.P. Land Reforms Act, 1950 the question whether such lands vest in the State on abolition of the estates etc. is also a matter left open since the State is not a party to these proceedings. It may be open to the appellants to have their right adjudicated as ordered by the High Court in an appropriate proceeding according to law.
5. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
1. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, made on 30.11.1977 in Special Appeal Nos.1047 & 1048 of 1970.
2. It is not necessary to dilate upon the three-tier history of the litigation. Suffice it to state that pursuant to the remand order made by the High Court in the last instance, the Deputy Director has gone into the question whether the Settlement Officer under the Consolidation Act has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Section 3(5) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act defines “land” to mean the land held or occupied for the purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry which includes pissiculture and poultry form and also the site, being part of a holding, of a house of other similar structures.
3. In view of the above definition under Section 3(5) of the Consolidation Act, the buildings occupying the land and used for commercial purposes are not covered by the Act. Therefore, the High Court had left the dispute open for a decision by the appropriate Court.
4. It is an admitted position that the appellants and the respondents are holding heats in those areas. Under the U.P. Land Reforms Act, 1950 the question whether such lands vest in the State on abolition of the estates etc. is also a matter left open since the State is not a party to these proceedings. It may be open to the appellants to have their right adjudicated as ordered by the High Court in an appropriate proceeding according to law.
5. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
