# Dalip Singh & Ors v. Vikram Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 797
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-07-07
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 421 of 2015
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dalip-singh-ors-v-vikram-singh-ors-43189
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953Section 6(i)-Cancellation of consolidation
proceeding-on
ground
of
delay
in
conclusion of proceeding due to dereliction
in duty-learned Single Judge quashed
notification and directed to conclude and
finalize the proceeding itself-whether can
such direction issued? held-'No'-in view of
law developed by Apex Court in Hari Bhajan
Singh case-no individual right of any tenure
holder effected.
Held: Para-7
The principle of law which has been laid
down in the judgment of the Division
Bench and in the judgment of the
Supreme Court is that before persons
have entered into possession of the
holdings allotted to them, they do not
acquire any right, title or interest and
they would not lose their rights by the
issuance of a notification under Section 6
of the Act. That is the position in law.
The
writ
petition
challenging
the
notification under Section 6 of the Act
was not maintainable since there were
no rights enuring to the benefit of the
original petitioners which were taken
away or affected by a notification under
Section 6 of the Act.
Case Law discussed:
2011 AIR SCW 195; 1976 RD 35

## Text

2 All] Dalip Singh & Ors. Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors.
797
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.
Special Appeal Defective No. 421 of 2015
Dalip Singh & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Vikram Singh & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N.B. Nigam
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rakesh Kumar
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953Section 6(i)-Cancellation of consolidation
proceeding-on
ground
of
delay
in
conclusion of proceeding due to dereliction
in duty-learned Single Judge quashed
notification and directed to conclude and
finalize the proceeding itself-whether can
such direction issued? held-'No'-in view of
law developed by Apex Court in Hari Bhajan
Singh case-no individual right of any tenure
holder effected.
Held: Para-7
The principle of law which has been laid
down in the judgment of the Division
Bench and in the judgment of the
Supreme Court is that before persons
have entered into possession of the
holdings allotted to them, they do not
acquire any right, title or interest and
they would not lose their rights by the
issuance of a notification under Section 6
of the Act. That is the position in law.
The
writ
petition
challenging
the
notification under Section 6 of the Act
was not maintainable since there were
no rights enuring to the benefit of the
original petitioners which were taken
away or affected by a notification under
Section 6 of the Act.
Case Law discussed:
2011 AIR SCW 195; 1976 RD 35
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)
1. The appellants are in appeal against
a judgment and order of the learned Single
Judge dated 27 April 2015. The appellants
claim to be tenure holders of Village
Hanspur,
Gutaiyaj
Natthapur,
Tehsil
Puwaya, District Shahjahanpur. The village
was placed under consolidation and a
notification was issued under Section 4 of the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 19531
on 5 August 1972. The first, second and third
respondents, who are the original petitioners,
moved
an
application
before
the
Consolidation Officer, Shahjahanpur in
2011-12 nearly forty years after the
commencement of consolidation proceedings
in 1972 and nearly thirty two years after the
framing of a preliminary consolidation
scheme in 1980. The Consolidation Officer
by an order dated 28 July 2012 rejected the
application. Appeals were filed against the
order of the Consolidation Officer. The
Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by an
order dated 12 November 2012 remanded
the proceedings back to the Consolidation
Officer for disposal afresh. On 9 July 2013, a
notification was issued by the Consolidation
Commissioner under Section 6(1) of the Act
cancelling the notification under Section 4 of
the Act. The first, second and third
respondents filed a writ petition seeking to
challenge the legality of the notification
dated 9 July 2013 and also seeking a
mandamus to the consolidation authorities to
conclude the consolidation proceedings
expeditiously. The appellants, who are tenure
holders, were not parties to the proceedings.
The writ petition was allowed by a learned
Single Judge by a judgment and order dated
27 April 2015 in the following terms:
798
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"The writ petition has been filed for
quashing
the
notification
dated
09.07.2013
by
which
consolidation
operation has been closed in village
Hanspur,
Gutaiyaj
Natthapur,
tehsil
Puwaya, District Shahjahanpur. Impugned
notification does not contain any reason
as such the counter affidavit has been
called for. In the counter affidavit it has
been stated that in spite of efforts made by
the consolidation authority they could not
be able to demarcate the chak as well as
deliver possession, although more than 40
years have passed, as such the notification
under section 6 was issued.
The reason given in the counter
affidavit shows that there was dereliction
in discharge of statutory duties. If
consolidation
authorities
could
not
demarcate
the
Chaks
and
deliver
possession over it, then it can not be a
ground for quashing the consolidation
proceeding.
In the result, the writ petition is
succeeded
and
is
allowed.
The
notification dated 09.07.2013 issued by
Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. is
quashed.
District
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Shahjahanpur is directed
to ensure the demarcation of the chaks
and delivery of possession by deputing
necessary police force in the villages upto
June, 2015."
2. The submission which has been
urged on behalf of the appellants is that it
is a well settled principle of law that an
order passed under Section 6(1) of the Act
cancelling a notification under Section 4
of the Act does not affect the rights of any
individual and has no civil consequences,
since before persons enter into possession
of the holdings allotted to them, they do
not acquire any right, title or interest nor
do they lose any of the rights, title or
interest in their original holdings. Hence,
it has been held by the Supreme Court
that such an order is not even required to
be preceded by an opportunity of being
heard. Reliance was placed on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in
Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh2 where similar provisions of the
Himachal
Pradesh
Holdings
(Consolidation
and
Prevention
of
Fragmentation)
Act,
1971
were
considered. A similar view was taken in
an earlier decision of a Division Bench of
this Court in Agricultural & Industrial
Syndicate Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.3
3. On the other hand, it was sought
to be urged on behalf of the first, second
and third respondents that there was no
lawful justification for the issuance of a
notification under Section 6 of the Act
cancelling the earlier notification under
Section 4 of the Act and, as the learned
Single Judge observed, there was a
dereliction of duty on the part of the
consolidation authorities in completing
the consolidation operations. In view
thereof, the learned Single Judge has it is
urged, correctly issued the impugned
direction.
4. Section 4 of the Act empowers
the State Government, where it is of the
opinion that a district or part thereof may
be
brought
under
consolidation
operations, to make a declaration to that
effect through a gazette notification.
Thereupon, it is lawful for any officer or
authority empowered by the District
Deputy Director of Consolidation, inter
alia, to enter upon and survey the land
within such areas; and to do all acts, if
necessary, to ascertain the suitability of
the area for consolidation operations.
2 All] Dalip Singh & Ors. Vs. Vikram Singh & Ors.
799
Section 6 of the Act empowers the State
Government to cancel at any time a
notification made under Section 4 of the Act
in respect of the whole or any part of the area
specified therein. The consequence of the
issuance of a notification under sub-section 1
is provided in sub-section 2.
5. The provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of
the Act came up for consideration before a
Division Bench of this Court in Agricultural
& Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (supra). The
Division Bench held that when the Director of
Consolidation issues a notification under
Section 4 or Section 6, he performs neither a
quasi judicial function nor does he exercise an
administrative power. In the view of the
Division Bench, the power was of a legislative
nature. Moreover, it was held that if a
notification is issued under Section 6, the land
holder has no rights which are affected in
consequence of such a notification. The
Supreme Court in the judgment in Harbhajan
Singh (supra) while considering a similar
provision contained in Section 16(1) of the
Consolidation Act in the State of Himachal
Pradesh held as follows:-
"It is, thus, clear that it is only when the
persons entitled to possession of holdings
under the Act have been delivered possession
of the holdings that they acquire rights, title
and interest in the new holding allotted to
them and the consolidation scheme in the area
is deemed to have come into force. Till such
possession of the allotted land under the
consolidation scheme is delivered to the
allottees and the consolidation scheme is
deemed to come into force, the State
Government has the power under Section
16(1) of the Act to cancel the declaration
under Section 14(1) of the Act."
6. The Supreme Court also held as
follows:
"We have already held that the State
Government can issue a notification under
Section 16(1) of the Act cancelling the
declaration under Section 14(1) of the Act in
respect of any area at any time before the
persons entitled to possession of holdings
under the Act have entered into possession of
the holdings allotted to them. Since before
the persons enter into possession of the
holdings allotted to them, they do not acquire
any right, title and interest in the holdings
allotted to them and they do not lose in any
manner their rights, title and interest in their
original holdings, their rights are not affected
by the issuance of a notification under
Section 16(1) of the Act. In other words, a
notification under Section 16(1) of the Act
issued by the State Government before
delivery of possession of the allotted
holdings
to
persons
has
no
civil
consequences and, therefore, the State
Government is not required to follow the
principles of natural justice before issuing
such a notification."
7. The principle of law which has been
laid down in the judgment of the Division
Bench and in the judgment of the Supreme
Court is that before persons have entered into
possession of the holdings allotted to them,
they do not acquire any right, title or interest
and they would not lose their rights by the
issuance of a notification under Section 6 of
the Act. That is the position in law. The writ
petition challenging the notification under
Section 6 of the Act was not maintainable
since there were no rights enuring to the
benefit of the original petitioners which were
taken away or affected by a notification
under Section 6 of the Act.
8. A counter affidavit was filed in the
proceedings before the learned Single Judge
by the Consolidation Officer stating that after
the notification was issued under Section
800
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4A(2) of the Act on 30 May 1970 for
launching
consolidation
operations,
the
consolidation
authorities
made
several
attempts to complete the work of demarcation
and delivery of possession of chaks but the
rival groups in the village seriously opposed
the work of demarcation. There was an
apprehension of a breach of peace in the
village, as a result of which it became
impossible to start and complete the work at
the stage of Section 24 of the Act. The village
was notified in 1970 and though more than 40
years had elapsed, the village consolidation
scheme could not be implemented. In these
compelling circumstances, the District Deputy
Director of Consolidation directed the District
Consolidation Authority to submit a report on
whether a consolidation scheme in the village
could be completed or not. Pursuant thereto,
the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the
Consolidation Officer visited the village. In
the course of the enquiry, it was found that
during the pendency of certain writ petitions
before this Court, stay orders had been passed
and there was serious local opposition to the
work of demarcation. Despite the passage of
nearly forty years, the villagers were still in
possession of their original holdings and
almost all the villagers were in favour of the
issuance of a notification under Section 6 of
the
Act.
The
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation) reported the matter to the
District Deputy Director of Consolidation
who, in turn, forwarded it to the Consolidation
Commissioner for appropriate action. It was
on this basis that a decision was taken to
cancel the notification under Section 4 of the
Act since it was found that there was no need
to effect a change, the villagers being in
possession of their plots for almost forty years.
9. The submission which has been
urged on behalf of the appellants has a
clear basis in the law which has been laid
down in the judgment of the Supreme
Court as well as in the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court noted above.
The issuance of a notification under
Section 6 of the Act cannot be regarded as
arbitrary having due regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case noted
above. No rights enuring to the benefit of
the first, second and third respondents
stood affected by the issuance of a
notification under Section 6 of the Act.
Hence, the order of the learned Single
Judge quashing the notification was
clearly not warranted. The learned Single
Judge, in fact, issued a further direction to
the consolidation authorities to ensure the
demarcation of chaks and the delivery of
possession with the assistance of police
force. These directions have caused
serious prejudice to the appellants who
are not parties to the proceedings and
would be directly affected by such
directions.
10. For these reasons, we hold that
the impugned judgment and order dated
27 April 2015 is unsustainable. The
special appeal is accordingly allowed by
setting aside the judgment and order of
the learned Single Judge dated 27 April
2015. The writ petition filed by the first,
second and third respondents shall, in
consequence, stand dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.
Special Appeal Defective No. 456 of 2015
State of U.P. & Ors.
 ...Appellants