- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kumbha Karan v. S.C Lal Saxena And Others Opposite-Parties.
Summary of Opinion — Tandon, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
In 1956 consolidation of holdings operations were undertaken in Village Sehlumau (Pargana and Tahsil Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow). Following the statutory scheme, a statement of tenure holders made under Section 11 was published on 31 December 1956. Plot No. 160/5 was shown in that statement as a grove belonging to Kumbha Karan (the petitioner).
Section 12 allowed interested persons to file objections within a prescribed period. Srimati Lachmin (respondent no. 4), who later disputed the ownership of plot 160/5, did not file any objection within the limitation period and consequently the entry remained unaltered.
After the limitation period expired, Srimati Lachmin purported to file an objection claiming the grove as hers; that objection was dismissed as time-barred and an appeal against that dismissal also failed. She then filed a civil suit claiming the grove, which, the petitioner informs the Court, was dismissed.
In 1959 (the opinion notes the exact date is not shown in the record), proceedings under Section 27 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act were held in the village to prepare new revenue records (maps, khasra and record-of-rights). During those proceedings it was at one time reported that Srimati Lachmin was in possession of grove no. 160/5, and an entry to that effect was made in Form No. 6 instead of the petitioner's name. On further scrutiny, the Assistant Consolidation Officer concluded the partal was incorrect and that Kumbha Karan's name should appear in Form No. 6.
Nevertheless, Lachmin filed an objection purportedly under rule 74 claiming the plot as her grove/Bhumidhar. The Consolidation Officer, on 31 August 1939 (as recorded in the opinion), ordered that Kumbha Karan's name be expunged and substituted with Lachmin's; the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on appeal confirmed that order, and the Deputy Director (Consolidation) refused to interfere. The petitioner filed the present petition challenging the legality of those orders.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the consolidation authorities, exercising powers under Section 27 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (in Chapter IV), have the jurisdiction to decide questions of title in proceedings held for preparation of new village maps, khasra and record-of-rights.
- Whether a claim to title (here, relating to a grove) that could and ought to have been raised under Section 12(1) but was not (or was time-barred) is barred from being raised in proceedings under Section 27.
- Whether groves (lands said to be not included in the consolidation scheme) can be the subject of title adjudication by consolidation authorities in the context of proceedings under Section 27.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner challenged the orders of the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director (Consolidation), contending that those authorities had no jurisdiction under Section 27 to decide questions of title.
- It was urged that groves are lands not included in the consolidation scheme and therefore could not be the subject of decision by consolidation courts/authorities.
- It was also argued that Srimati Lachmin was disentitled from raising the title question because Section 12(7) bars raising a question of title in later objections if it could and ought to have been raised earlier under Section 11/12 procedures.
Respondent / State / Consolidation Authorities' Arguments
- The learned Standing Counsel relied on Section 27(2), which declares that "all entries in the record-of-rights and in the maps prepared under sub-Sec. (1) shall be final and conclusive", and argued that such finality and conclusiveness indicated that the legislature intended to confer jurisdiction on consolidation authorities to decide questions of title in the Section 27 proceedings.
- The consolidation orders themselves contained references (meagre, incidental) to possession, which the authorities apparently treated as a basis for their decisions.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeds from a textual and structural reading of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and the related rules and provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 as made applicable by Section 27(1).
1. The Court first explains the statutory scheme: Chapter II (Statement of tenure-holders under Section 11 and objections under Section 12) is the stage where questions of title are to be raised and decided; Section 12(7) expressly bars later raising of title questions that could and ought to have been raised earlier.
2. Chapter III provides for preparation of statements of proposals (Section 19), objections to those proposals (Section 20), disposal of objections (Sections 21 and 22), reference to a Civil Judge/arbitrator where title is raised (Section 22), and final confirmation of the statement of proposals by the Settlement Officer (Section 23), after which the statement becomes final. The Court emphasizes that the scheme of Chapters II and III is to determine title and then produce fresh allotments (Chaks) which replace the old plots.
3. Section 27 appears in Chapter IV, which deals with enforcement of the scheme. Section 27(1) applies provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, subject to rules; Section 27(2) states that entries in the new record-of-rights shall be final and conclusive; Section 27(3) assigns maintenance of those records to the Collector.
4. The Court examines the rules framed under Section 27 (rules 72–74). Rule 72 requires preparation of new village maps and records on the basis of the statement of proposals finalized under Section 23. Rule 74 prescribes that a field-to-field partal will be made and the procedure in rules 21 and 22 (for correcting mistakes and deciding disputes about entries) shall be followed. Importantly, the opinion notes that entries made pursuant to those rules have not been given finality on questions of title.
5. The Court turns to the U.P. Land Revenue Act provisions made applicable by Section 27 and emphasizes Section 40 of that Act, which provides that disputes as to entries in annual registers are to be decided on the basis of possession; such decisions do not bar a person from establishing title in a civil or revenue court. "Possession" is defined expansively in that Act to include possession based on succession or transfer or on changes dealt with in Section 39 (which concerns corrections for mistakes or errors).
6. From the scheme and these analogue provisions, the Court draws the conclusion that Section 27 and the applicable provisions of the Land Revenue Act do not contemplate an inquiry or adjudication into title in the Section 27 proceedings. Rather, Section 27 is intended to give effect to the consolidation scheme in revenue papers (i.e., to record and implement the allotments already finalized by earlier stages of the consolidation process) and to register changes such as transfers or successions that have occurred in the meantime.
7. The Court rejects the Standing Counsel's argument that the statement of finality in Section 27(2) implies jurisdiction to decide title. The Court explains that the finality and conclusiveness are intended to make the consolidation scheme as reflected in the entries final for the purpose of revenue records; they do not confer jurisdiction to decide title in the enforcement-stage proceedings.
8. Having established that Section 27 proceedings are not a forum for title adjudication, the Court reviews the three challenged orders (by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer (Consolidation), and the Deputy Director (Consolidation)) and concludes that those authorities in fact embarked upon deciding the question of title. The references to possession in the orders are incidental; the authorities actually decided title, which the Court finds they had no authority to do.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The petition is allowed and the three challenged orders are quashed.
Direct consequences for the parties:
- The orders of the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director (Consolidation) that purported to expunge the petitioner's name and substitute Srimati Lachmin's name (i.e., the decisions affecting title) are quashed as without jurisdiction.
- The petitioner is granted costs to be recovered from the respondents.
- The formal judgment notes "Petition allowed." as the operative result.
Broader implications:
The opinion interprets the statutory scheme to mean that Section 27 proceedings (and the procedures and rules applied in preparing new maps and record-of-rights) are not intended to be forums for deciding questions of title; such questions must be raised and determined in the earlier stages provided by Chapters II and III (and, where applicable, in civil or revenue courts). The opinion does not state that it is establishing a novel precedent beyond applying and explaining the statute and the relevant provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act; it confines its decision to the direct effect of quashing the impugned orders for lack of jurisdiction.
Petition allowed.
Tandon, J.:— It may be necessary at the very outset to state the following facts. Village Sehlumau Pargana and Tahsil Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow was placed under consolidation of holdings operations in 1956. In accordance with the scheme laid down in that Act after the usual examination of village records the statement of tenure holders made under Sec. 11 was published on 31st December, 1956. Plot No. 160/5 was shown in this statement as grove belonging to Kumbha Karan petitioner. Sec. 12 of the Act allows persons interested in disputing the correctness or nature of an entry in the statement to prefer objections within a time prescribed therefor. Srimati Lachmin with whom the dispute later arose in respect of the above plot never filed within the period of limitation any objection on the statement published under Sec. 11. The result was that the entry with respect to the above plot remained unaltered.
2. Sometime after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing objections Srimati Lachmin made the objection claiming that the plot belonged to her as her grove. This objection was dismissed being time barred. An appeal against the order dismissing the objection also failed. The lady who was not satisfied then filed a suit also in the civil court claiming the grove but I have been informed by the petitioner that too has since been dismissed.
3. Sec. 12 of the Act, which makes provision for the filing of objections and their decision on the statement of tenure holders, lays down in sub-Sec. (7) that a question of title in respect of any plot mentioned in the statement which might and ought to have been raised finder sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 1 but had not been raised shall not be raised in any objection filed under sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 20 or under sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 34. The intention underlying this provision is to give finality to questions of title which have been raised and decided or which might and ought to have been raised but have not been so raised. Sec. 12 appears in Chapter II and is followed by Chapter III which provides for preparation of the consolidation scheme. It is not necessary to refer to the various provisions contained in this Chapter but the relevant out of them are to be found in Secs. 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 Sec. 19 requires that as soon as the Statement of Principles has become final under Sec. 18 the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall in accordance with the said statement prepare a statement of proposals which among other particulars will show the khasra numbers of the plots to be allotted to each tenure holder in lieu of his original plots of his holding. Sec. 20 allows opportunity to the tenure holders to file objections on the statement of proposals while these objections are to be disposed of under Secs. 21 and 22. Sec. 22 requires that whenever a question of title is raised in the objections it shall be referred for determination to the Civil Judge who will, thereupon refer it to the arbitrator. The next Sec. i.e Sec. 23 provides that where objections have been filed and disposed of or where no objections are filed on the statement of proposals within the time specified therefor, the Settlement Officer Consolidation shall confirm the statement after making such modifications or alterations as shall have become necessary in view of the orders passed under Secs. 21 and 22. It further lays down that the statement thus modified and confirmed will become final.
4. Chapter IV of the Act relating to the enforcement of the scheme as finalised under Sec. 23 contains provisions, firstly, for the fixing of the date from which the scheme shall come into operation, secondly for the issue of allotment orders to the tenure holders of the plots allotted to them, and, thirdly, about the right of tenure holders to enter into possession of the plots allotted to them. Sec. 27 which also appears in the same Chapter is thus:—
“27(1) As soon as may be, after the consolidation scheme has come into force, the Director of Consolidation shall cause to be prepared a new village map, Khasra and record of rights in respect of each village included in the consolidation operation and the provisions of the U.P Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall, subject to such modifications and alterations as may be prescribed, be followed in the preparation of the said maps and records.
(2) All entries in the record-of-rights and in the maps prepared under sub-Sec. (1) shall be final and conclusive.
(3) The record prepared under sub-Sec. (1) shall be maintained by the Collector instead of the records maintained previously under Sec. 33 of the U.P Land Revenue Act 1901.”
5. Sub-Sec. (1) above contemplates that the provisions of the U.P Land Revenue Act 1901 shall be applicable for the framing of new revenue records subject to such modifications and alterations as shall be prescribed by the rules. In pursuance of it the State Government have framed rules 72, 73 and 74, Rule 72 is to the effect that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) shall cause to be prepared a village map, khasra and record-of-rights for each village in respect of the areas which were included in the scheme of consolidation on the basis of the statement of proposals finalised under Sec. 23, and in the case of lands which were not included in the scheme of consolidation, after partal in accordance with rules 73 and 74. Rule 74 prescribes that a field to field partal shall be made and the procedure laid down in rules 21 and 22 shall be followed in correcting mistakes and deciding dispute about entries. Rules 21 and 22 in their turn lay down the manner in which the partal and objections thereto have to be conducted. The only important point about them is that the entries made in pursuance of them have not been given a finality on the question of title.
6. To revert now to the particular facts of this petition what happened was that in 1959—the exact date is not known from the record proceedings under Sec. 27 of the consolidation of holdings were held in the village in question. In the course of those proceedings it was at one time reported that Srimati Lachmin respondent no. 4 was in possession of grove no. 160/5. An entry also to that effect was, therefore, made in Form No. 6 in place of the petitioner whose name appeared in the statement published under Sec. 11 of the Act. On further scrutiny, however, the Assistant Consolidation Officer discovered that the partal had not been correctly done and that the name of Srimati Lachmin could not be entered in Form No. 6 while the name of Kumbha Karan the petitioner should have been entered. In these proceedings the lady filed an objection purporting to be under rule 74 of the Rules claiming that the plot belonged to her as its grove holder and Bhumidhar. The Consolidation Officer who heard the said objection held on 31st August, 1939, that Kumbha Karan's name shall be expunged from the record while the lady's name shall be substituted. The Settlement Officer Consolidation on appeal confirmed the order of the Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director Consolidation too refused to interfere. The petitioner thereupon filed this petition challenging the legality of the aforesaid orders.
7. Various grounds have been urged against these orders, one being that groves being lands not included in the consolidation scheme, cannot be the subject of decision by the consolidation courts and the other being that, in any case, these courts or authorities had no jurisdiction under Sec. 27 to decide the question of title; they could not do so on the ground also that Srimati Lachmin was disentitled from raising the question in view of sub-Sec. (7) of Sec. 12 of the Act.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the two sides and to my mind it is not necessary for disposing of this petition to enter into the controversy whether the consolidation authorities had jurisdiction or not to decide the question of title with respect to groves which otherwise are excluded from the scheme of consolidation, the reason is that Sec. 27 does not confer power on these authorities to decide questions of title in the proceedings held under its provisions.
9. The section, it is noteworthy, appears in the Chapter relating to enforcement of the scheme of consolidation. It will be noticed that Chapter II of the Act requires statement of tenure holders to be prepared. It also requires persons interested in disputing the correctness etc. of entries in the statement published under Sec. 11 to prefer their claims within the prescribed period of limitation. Any claim which might and ought to have been urged but was not urged will not be permitted to be raised subsequently. A question of title in respect of plots included in the holdings has to be raised and decided at that stage. The next Chapter then provides for the preparation of Chaks which have to be given to different tenure holders in lieu of the plots etc. held by them. These Chaks again are prepared after due opportunity has been given to the tenure holders to object on the proposals. And after the objections have been disposed of the Chaks are conferred finality by Sec. 23. Briefly, therefore, the scheme of these two Chapters is firstly that all questions of title in respect of lands are disposed of in the first instance, and, secondly, that new Chaks are formed to show which plots shall in future be held by different tenure holders. The old plots belonging to them yield in favour of the Chaks freshly awarded to them.
10. Chapter IV in which Sec. 27 appears relates to enforcement of the consolidation scheme. It is in this back ground that Sec. 27 will have to be read and interpreted. The new revenue re cords which are to be prepared under its provisions are with a view to give effect in those records to the new allotments made to the tenure holders. The section does not permit question of title to be raised or decided, much less any decision given or deemed to be given in proceedings held under Chapter II or Chapter III to be reopened or altered, modified or rescinded.
11. This is further proved by the fact also that the provisions of the U.P Land Revenue Act, 1901 have been made applicable to those proceedings Sec. 40 of this Act in making provision for settlement of disputes as to entries in annual registers has clearly, provided that all disputes regarding entries in those registers shall be decided on the basis of possession while any such order shall not debar arty person from establishing his right to the property in any civil or revenue court having jurisdiction. The term “possession” has also been defined in the same section as meaning possession based on succession or transfer or on such transfer and changes as are dealt with in Sec. 39, Sec. 39 refers to changes becoming necessary on account of any mistake or error arising from any accidental slip or omission.
12. It will thus be clear that even the previsions of the Land Revenue Act which govern the proceedings held finder Sec. 27 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act do not envisage an inquiry into title. The purpose, therefore, of Sec. 27 is to give effect to the consolidation scheme in the revenue papers and also to record any changes which might have become necessary on account of any transfer or succession or the like taking place in the meantime. An objection raising a question of title cannot be inquired into in these proceedings. The learned Standing Counsel referred me to sub-Sec. (2) wherein it is laid down that “all entries in the record-of-rights prepared under sub-Sec. (1) shall be final and conclusive” and he argued that finality and; conclusiveness conferred upon the entries showed that the legislature intended to confer jurisdiction to decide questions of title as well. I do not think this is correct. Sec. 27 is intended to give effect to the consolidation scheme. The finality and conclusiveness provided for by sub-Sec. (2) cannot, therefore, mean beyond providing that the scheme as evidenced by the entries as made in the revenue, records will be final and conclusive. The finality or conclusiveness does not, and, indeed, cannot, confer jurisdiction to decide questions of title at this stage.
13. I have carefully gone through the judgments of the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director Consolidation and to my mind it is impossible to get away from the conclusion that these authorities embarked upon a decision of question of title for which they had no authority under the law. They have proceeded in each one of these documents to settle question of title. Whatever meagre reference there is at one or two places to the fact of possession is incidental only while they actually decided the question of title which, however, was not open to them.
14. In the above view of the matter the three orders complained of are without jurisdiction. They are accordingly quashed. The petitioner to get his costs from the respondents.
Petition allowed.
Alert