# Dalel v. Baroo, 1963 RD 67 (H.C. F.B.)

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 719
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-05-03
- **Bench:** Sibghat Ullah Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dalel-v-baroo-1963-rd-67-h-c-f-b-41986
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri R.N.Rai
Sri B.L.Srivastava
Sri Purushottam Upadhyay
S.C.

U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holding
Act,
Section
49-bar
of
subsequent
proceedings-Respondents filed Suit for
declaration of Bhumidhar of plot in
question-as the plot in question has been
developed as grove with permission of
Land Lord-have became absolute ownerdismissed by Trail Court as barred by
Section 49 of the Act-1st Appellate Court
set-a-side
the
order
remanded
the
matter
for
fresh
decision-as
consolidation
authorities
have
no
jurisdiction to allot the same to any
other
person-Second
Appeal
also
dismissed-hence
consolidation
authorities have every jurisdiction to
decide the title of the grove land alsohence the order passed by the Appellate
Court illegal-High Court affirm the view
of Trail Court.

Held: Para 5

Consolidation in respect of grove land
cannot take place in the sense that a plot
having grove cannot be given to any
other person in rearrangement of chak.
However, as far as question of title is
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
concerned, consolidation courts have got
full jurisdiction to decide the matter and
bar of Section 49 squarely applies. In
this regard reference may be made to
Dalel Vs. Baroo, 1963 RD 67 (H.C. F.B.),
Ram Dulare Vs. Ram Charan, 1977 RD
108 (H.C.), Shambhu Vs. D.D.C., 1975
AWC 469, Baijnath Rai Vs. D.D.C., 1986
RD 306 (D.B.) and Anwar Ali Vs. Munir
Ali, 1981 RD 300 (H.C.).
Case law discussed:
1963 RD 67(H.C. F.B.; 1977 RD 108 (H.C.);
1986 RD 306 (D.B.); 1981 RD 300 (H.C.)

## Text

2 All Sudarshan V. Tapesar and others
719
vehicles existing prior to 23/2/2010 shall
hold field till any other decision is taken by
S.T.A. or order dated 08/10/2010 of the
Tribunal is set-aside.

27. In view of the foregoing
discussions and conclusions, we dispose of
this writ petition with the following
directions:

1. The S.T.A. is fully justified to put
model condition regarding age of vehicles
(including three wheeler).

2. The decision of the STA dated
23/2/2010, which is the basis for putting
model condition in the petitioners permit
that vehicles are to be changed after 5
years, having been set-aside, the period of
5 years in the model condition in the
permits of the petitioners shall stand
substituted by the period of 7 years which
was prevalent prior to 23/2/2010.

3. The model condition in the
petitioners vehicles (which are three
wheelers) shall be read to the effect that the
petitioners have to change their vehicles
after 7 years, failing which their permits
shall be treated to be automatically
cancelled.

4. That the above directions shall
continue till the STA takes any other
decision fixing any other age of vehicles
(three wheelers) in accordance with law.

28. The prayer of the petitioners that
a direction be issued to the respondent
no.2, Regional Transport Officer, Meerut
to permit the petitioners to ply their three
wheelers up to the age of 20 years, cannot
be granted and is refused.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28924 o 1994

Sudarshan

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Tapesar and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K.Varma
Sri Siddharth Varma

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri R.N.Rai
Sri B.L.Srivastava
Sri Purushottam Upadhyay
S.C.

U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holding
Act,
Section
49-bar
of
subsequent
proceedings-Respondents filed Suit for
declaration of Bhumidhar of plot in
question-as the plot in question has been
developed as grove with permission of
Land Lord-have became absolute ownerdismissed by Trail Court as barred by
Section 49 of the Act-1st Appellate Court
set-a-side
the
order
remanded
the
matter
for
fresh
decision-as
consolidation
authorities
have
no
jurisdiction to allot the same to any
other
person-Second
Appeal
also
dismissed-hence
consolidation
authorities have every jurisdiction to
decide the title of the grove land alsohence the order passed by the Appellate
Court illegal-High Court affirm the view
of Trail Court.

Held: Para 5

Consolidation in respect of grove land
cannot take place in the sense that a plot
having grove cannot be given to any
other person in rearrangement of chak.
However, as far as question of title is
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
concerned, consolidation courts have got
full jurisdiction to decide the matter and
bar of Section 49 squarely applies. In
this regard reference may be made to
Dalel Vs. Baroo, 1963 RD 67 (H.C. F.B.),
Ram Dulare Vs. Ram Charan, 1977 RD
108 (H.C.), Shambhu Vs. D.D.C., 1975
AWC 469, Baijnath Rai Vs. D.D.C., 1986
RD 306 (D.B.) and Anwar Ali Vs. Munir
Ali, 1981 RD 300 (H.C.).
Case law discussed:
1963 RD 67(H.C. F.B.; 1977 RD 108 (H.C.);
1986 RD 306 (D.B.); 1981 RD 300 (H.C.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble S. U. Khan,J. )

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The only question involved in this
writ petition is as to whether bar of
Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act applies to grove land or
not? Para-1 of the writ petition is quoted
below:

"That the opposite parties 1 and 2
filed a Suit under section 229-B of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and L.R. Act on
30.10.70 on the ground that even though
initially the plot in dispute belonged to
Purnvasi, Shiv Nath and Vira yet when
the Zamindar had given permission to the
plaintiffs Tapeshwar and Munni Lal for
the plantation of a grove then the
plaintiffs alone became the grove holders
and after the abolition of Zamindari the
plaintiffs alone became Bhumidhars."

3. The number of the plot in dispute
is 40, area 13 biswas 16 biswansis.
S.D.O., Ghazipur dismissed the Suit
No.359 on 15.03.1986 holding the same
to be barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H.
Act as consolidation in the area in
question had taken place and the plea
raised in the suit by the plaintiff could be
raised by him before consolidation courts
but it was not done. Against the said
order, Appeal No.33 of 1986 was filed.
Additional Commissioner First, Varanasi
Division, Varanasi allowed the appeal on
26.06.1989 (Annexure-III to the writ
petition). The lower appellate court in
Para-10 of its judgment held that plaintiffs
appeared to be the only grove holders/
bhumidhars in use and occupation of the
land
in
dispute.
Ultimately
lower
appellate court set aside the judgment and
decree passed by the trial court and
remanded the matter to it. Against the
appellate court judgment and decree,
Second Appeal No.39 of 1988-89 was
filed. Board of Revenue, Allahabad
dismissed
the
second
appeal
on
30.05.1994, hence this writ petition.

4. Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act is
quoted below:

""49. Bar to Civil Jurisdiction.--
Notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law for the time being in force,
the declaration and adjudication of right
of tenure-holder in respect of land lying
in an area, for which a [notification] has
been issued [under sub-section (2) of
Section 4] or ad-judication of any other
right
arising
out
of
consolidation
proceedings and in regard to which a
proceeding could or ought to have been
taken under this Act, shall be done in
accordance with the provisions of this Act
and no Civil or Revenue Court shall
entertain any suit or proceeding with
respect to rights in such land or with
respect to any other matters for which a
proceeding could or ought to have been
taken under this Act." (proviso not
relevant)
2 All Shashi Kumar Tripathi V. State of U.P. and another
721

5. Consolidation in respect of grove
land cannot take place in the sense that a
plot having grove cannot be given to any
other person in rearrangement of chak.
However, as far as question of title is
concerned, consolidation courts have got
full jurisdiction to decide the matter and
bar of Section 49 squarely applies. In this
regard reference may be made to Dalel
Vs. Baroo, 1963 RD 67 (H.C. F.B.),
Ram Dulare Vs. Ram Charan, 1977 RD
108 (H.C.), Shambhu Vs. D.D.C., 1975
AWC 469, Baijnath Rai Vs. D.D.C.,
1986 RD 306 (D.B.) and Anwar Ali Vs.
Munir Ali, 1981 RD 300 (H.C.).

6. Accordingly, writ petition is
allowed. Judgment and decrees passed by
the lower appellate court and Board of
Revenue are set aside. Judgment and
decree passed by the trial court is
affirmed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32221 of 2011

Shashi Kumar Tripathi
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sandeep Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules
1997-Rule 4(2)-circle rate notified on
01.08.2010-objection against circle rate
pending-such circle rate can be revised
by D.M. On its own or on representationdirection to consider and decide the
same within period of two months

Held: Para 5

Rule
4(2)
of
the
aforesaid
Rules
empowers
the
Collector,
on
being
satisfied about the incorrectness of the
circle rates, to revise the same within a
period of two years from the date of
fixation of the minimum rates. The said
revision may be done by the Collector
either at his own motion or on an
application made to him in this behalf.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. )

1. The Collector, Kanpur Nagar
under the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of
Property) Rules, 1997 has prescribed the
minimum rates for different categories of
land which are commonly known as circle
rates on 1.8.2010.

2.

The
petitioner
has
filed
objection/representation
against
the
fixation of the aforesaid rates vide
application dated 26.2.2011, Annexure - 5
to the writ petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that his
aforesaid application/representation is not
being considered and decided by the
Collector, Kanpur Nagar, respondent
No.2.

5. Rule 4(2) of the aforesaid Rules
empowers
the
Collector,
on
being
satisfied about the incorrectness of the
circle rates, to revise the same within a
period of two years from the date of
fixation of the minimum rates. The said