- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gafoora And Another v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Meerut And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The four consolidated civil appeals arise out of writ petitions dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. The dispute concerns agricultural lands originally recorded in the name of one Nathu Masih. The appellants purchased the lands through two registered sale deeds dated 21 July 1959 but never sought mutation of their names in the revenue records.
During subsequent consolidation proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the statutory notice (Form 5) under Section 9 was published in November 1966, inviting objections within 21 days. The appellants filed no objection within that period. Instead, they lodged an application on 19 October 1967 purporting to proceed under Section 12 of the Act. When the maintainability of that application was challenged on 12 September 1968, the appellants sought—without affidavit or explanation—both registration of the objection under Section 9 and condonation of delay.
The Consolidation Officer rejected the application. On appeal, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) remanded the matter for a decision on merits and on limitation. Respondents invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Deputy Director (Consolidation), who reinstated the Consolidation Officer’s orders, holding the objections time-barred under Section 11-A. The appellants' subsequent writ petitions under Article 226 were dismissed by the High Court. Special-leave petitions brought the matter before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in the absence of any explanation for delay, an objection filed beyond the 21-day limit prescribed by Section 9(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can be entertained or the delay condoned.
- Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, erred in declining to interfere with the Deputy Director (Consolidation)’s order that rejected the belated objections as barred by Section 11-A of the Act.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226: interference is warranted only for jurisdictional excess or a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record. It found neither in the Deputy Director (Consolidation)’s decision.
Key elements of the Court’s analysis were:
- Non-compliance with Section 9(2): The appellants indisputably failed to lodge objections within the statutory 21-day period. The Court accepted the Deputy Director’s factual finding that no earlier objection had been filed on 21 November 1966.
- Bar under Section 11-A: Because the objections “might or ought to have been raised” under Section 9 but were not, Section 11-A precluded their being raised at any later stage of the consolidation proceedings.
- Absence of cause for condonation: The application for condonation was unsupported by affidavit or any explanation. Consequently, the Settlement Officer lacked material to exercise discretion in the appellants’ favour.
- Correct exercise of revisional power: The Deputy Director (Consolidation) acted within jurisdiction under Section 48 in restoring the Consolidation Officer’s dismissal. No error of law or excess of jurisdiction was demonstrated.
The Court declined to entertain an equitable plea that the appellants’ “valuable rights” had been defeated, noting that such considerations lay outside the narrow questions presented in the appeals.
Holding and Implications
Appeals DISMISSED; no order as to costs.
Immediate effect: the Deputy Director (Consolidation)’s decision rejecting the appellants’ late objections stands restored, leaving the respondents’ titles undisturbed. Broader implication: the judgment underscores strict adherence to statutory limitation in consolidation proceedings and confirms that, absent jurisdictional error or an error of law apparent on the record, High Courts will not interfere under Article 226.
P.K Goswami, J.— This order will govern all the above four appeals.
2. The above civil appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 2143, 2144, 2145 and 2148 of 1971. One Nathu Masih was the recorded bhoomidar of the lands in dispute. The appellants claim to have purchased for valuable consideration the disputed lands by two registered sale deeds both of July 21, 1959, from Nathu Masih. The appellants, however, did not obtain mutation of their names in the record of rights. Meanwhile consolidation proceedings were commenced under the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P Act 5 of 1954) (briefly “the Act”). Appropriate notifications in C.H Form 5 were issued under Section 9 read with Rule 25(c) of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 in November, 1966 inviting objections to the issue of extracts from records and statements and publication of records under Section 8-A of the Act. Under Section 9(2) objection may be lodged by any person to whom notice has been sent or by any other person interested within 21 days of receipt of the notice or of the publication of the notice under sub-section (1) of Section 9. It is admitted that no objection was preferred under Section 9(2) by the appellants within the prescribed time. However, an objection was lodged on October 19, 1967, purporting to be one under Section 12 of the Act. When objection was raised by the respondents to this application under Section 12 on September 12, 1968, the appellants on the same day applied to the Consolidation Officer to register their application under Section 9 of the Act and also prayed “that the delay, if any, may be condoned”. This application was not supported by any affidavit nor were any grounds mentioned for condonation of the delay. The Consolidation Officer held that the application under Section 12 was not maintainable nor could he condone the delay in absence of any reasons disclosed by the appellants. The applications were, therefore, rejected. The appellants preferred appeals to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) against the orders of the Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer dated September 12, 1968 and September 16, 1968, respectively and remanded the cases to the Consolidation Officer with the direction that he should decide them on merits after registering the same under Section 9 of the Act and also consider the question of limitation. The respondents preferred four revisional applications to the Deputy Director (Consolidation) against the common order of the Settlement Officer of March 7, 1969, under Section 48 of the Act. The Deputy Director (Consolidation) went into the whole matter very carefully and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer and restored the orders of the Consolidation Officer of September 12, 1968 and September 16, 1968. The Deputy Director (Consolidation) in substance held that the applications under Section 12 were barred under Section 11-A of the Act and were, therefore, correctly rejected by the Consolidation Officer. He also held that since objections under Section 9(2) were not filed by the appellants within time and no cause whatsoever was shown at any stage of the proceedings explaining the delay for lodging the objections, these were rightly rejected by the Consolidation Officer. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Deputy Director (Consolidation) the appellants preferred writ applications under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Allahabad High Court and these were dismissed. Hence these appeals by special leave.
3. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court is correct in not interfering with the order of the Deputy Director (Consolidation) under Article 226 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is well settled. The High Court will interfere only if some order is passed by an authority in excess of jurisdiction or there is a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the records. The principal question that was canvassed before the Deputy Director (Consolidation) was whether failure to prefer objection within the time-limit prescribed under Section 9(2) of the Act would entitle an aggrieved party to agitate the matter beyond the prescribed period without explaining the cause of delay in preferring the objection and obtaining a proper order of condonation of delay from the appropriate authority. It is clear from the records that no objection was preferred within the prescribed time. The Deputy Director (Consolidation) refused, if we may say so, rightly to accept that the appellants had earlier lodged any objection on November 21, 1966. That being the position, there was no material whatsoever before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for exercising his jurisdiction to condone the delay for lodging objection under Section 9(2) of the Act. Section 11-A bars all objections in respect of claim to land, partition of joint holdings and valuation of plots, etc. relating to the consolidation area which have been raised under Section 9 or which might or ought to have been raised under that section but have not been so raised. These questions under Section 11-A cannot be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings. That being the position there is no error of law in the order of Deputy Director (Consolidation) nor is there any excess of jurisdiction committed by him in disposing of the matter as he did in exercise of his revisional power under Section 48.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants made an earnest appeal to us in the course of the hearing that their valuable rights which they secured by registered purchases from the recorded proprietor had been defeated resulting in grave injustice. That is a matter which this Court is not seized of in these appeals and we refrain from expressing any opinion on that submission.
5. In the result the appeals are dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
Alert