# Lalta Prasad and others v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 545
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-08-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 198 of 1977
- **Bench:** Krishna Murari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalta-prasad-and-others-v-the-deputy-director-of-consolidation-and-others-40419
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-1952,
S.9- Objection questing the validity of
lease- consolidation authorities have no
jurisdiction to decide question of validity
of lease or allotment made by the Gaon
Sabha-writ allowed.

Held- Para 4

The question about the jurisdiction of
the consolidation authorities to go into
the validity of the lease deed executed
by Gaon Sabha has been subject matter
of consideration before a Full Bench of
this Court in the case of Similesh Kumar
vs. Gaon Sabnha, Uskar, Ghazipur &
others, reported in 1977 RD 408. The Full
Bench held that consolidation authorities
do not have jurisdiction to decide the
question of validity of lease or allotment
made by the Gaon Sabha and they
cannot go beyond the same. The facts of
the case being identical of the facts of
case of Similesh Kumar (supra), the law
declared by the Full Bench is applicable
with full force. In view of the law laid
down by the Full Bench, this writ petition
deserves to be allowed.
Case law discussed:
1977 RD 408 (All) (FB)

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Harnam Das V. IInd A.D.J., Shahjahanpur and another
545
inadmissible. Learned counsel for the
petitioner
has
not
been
able
to
demonstrate that the evidence, which has
been relied upon is inadmissible, as such
this argument deserves to be rejected and
is hereby rejected. However, to me it
appears that the ground of material
alteration does not sufficient for ejectment
of the tenant even if the finding is that the
tenant
has
materially
altered
the
accommodation in question. In view of
the provision of Section 20 (2) (d) of the
Act, this material alteration is of such a
nature, which diminishes the value of the
accommodation in question. There is
neither any pleading, nor any finding by
the revisional Court, in this regard. In this
view the matter, the order passed by the
revisional Court deserves to be quashed.

4. In the result, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The order dated
16th November, 1988, Annexure-VI to the
writ petition, passed by the revisional
Court is quashed. The matter is send back
to the revisional Court with the direction
to decide the same afresh in the light of
the observations made above. Since the
matter if fairly old, the revisional Court
shall decide the matter within three
months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.8.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 198 of 1977

Lalta Prasad and others
...Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri I.N. Singh
Sri Ajay Yadav
Sri Anil Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anuj Kumar Singh
S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-1952,
S.9- Objection questing the validity of
lease- consolidation authorities have no
jurisdiction to decide question of validity
of lease or allotment made by the Gaon
Sabha-writ allowed.

Held- Para 4

The question about the jurisdiction of
the consolidation authorities to go into
the validity of the lease deed executed
by Gaon Sabha has been subject matter
of consideration before a Full Bench of
this Court in the case of Similesh Kumar
vs. Gaon Sabnha, Uskar, Ghazipur &
others, reported in 1977 RD 408. The Full
Bench held that consolidation authorities
do not have jurisdiction to decide the
question of validity of lease or allotment
made by the Gaon Sabha and they
cannot go beyond the same. The facts of
the case being identical of the facts of
case of Similesh Kumar (supra), the law
declared by the Full Bench is applicable
with full force. In view of the law laid
down by the Full Bench, this writ petition
deserves to be allowed.
Case law discussed:
1977 RD 408 (All) (FB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.)

1. I have heard I.N. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners and learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The dispute in the present writ
petition to plot no. 1679 M area 3-10-0
and plot no. 1677 M area 10-0-0 situate in
village Lacchmanpatti, Tehsil Gyanpur
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
546
district Varanasi. The plots belong to
Gaon Sabha which executed lease deed of
different area of the said plots in favour of
the petitioners in the year 1963. The
Tehsildar made a report that lease
executed in favour of the petitioner no. 1
by the land management committee being
against the provision of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act and the rules framed thereunder
was invalid and liable to be cancelled. On
the
said
report
proceedings
for
cancellation were initiated against the
petitioner no. 1 and he was put to notice.
He contested the proceedings and filed
objections. The Assistant Collector, First
Class vide order dated 13.10.1969 held
that lease was executed in accordance
with the provision of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act and the rules framed thereunder and
was valid. The said order was not
challenged and became final. With respect
to other petitioners, no such proceedings
for cancellation were ever initiated. The
village where the land is situated, was
notified
for
consolidation
operations
under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In
the basic year, the plots in dispute were
recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The
petitioners filed objection under Section 9
of the Act claiming rights on the basis of
the lease deed in their favour. The
Consolidation Officer vide judgment and
order
dated
8.10.1966
rejected
the
objection on the ground that procedure
prescribed for grant of lease was not
followed as such the same are invalid and
confers no right upon the petitioners. The
said judgment of the consolidation officer
was affirmed in appeal by the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation also met the
same fate.

3. It has been urged by the learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
that
consolidation
authorities
have
no
jurisdiction to go into the validity of the
lease deed and the orders passed, rejecting
their claim holding the lease deed in their
favour to be invalid, are illegal and
without jurisdiction.

4.

The
question
about
the
jurisdiction
of
the
consolidation
authorities to go into the validity of the
lease deed executed by Gaon Sabha has
been subject matter of consideration
before a Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Similesh Kumar vs. Gaon
Sabnha, Uskar, Ghazipur & others,
reported in 1977 RD 408. The Full Bench
held that consolidation authorities do not
have jurisdiction to decide the question of
validity of lease or allotment made by the
Gaon Sabha and they cannot go beyond
the same. The facts of the case being
identical of the facts of case of Similesh
Kumar (supra), the law declared by the
Full Bench is applicable with full force. In
view of the law laid down by the Full
Bench, this writ petition deserves to be
allowed. It is noteworthy that the dispute
started in 1967 and has remained pending
for about thirty seven years and no useful
purpose would be served by remanding
the matter back. The claim of the
petitioners based on the lease deed was
rejected by the consolidation authorities
only on the ground that the same was not
valid and legal for which they had no
jurisdiction. The lease executed by Gaon
Sabha in favour of the petitioners has
never been cancelled by any competent
authority and thus is a valid lease.

5. In this view of the matter, the writ
petition stands allowed. The judgment and
order dated 13.8.1976, 22.8.1968 and
8.2.1967 passed by respondent nos. 1,2 &
3 respectively are hereby quashed. The
objection filed by the petitioner under
Sections 9 of the Act stands allowed. A
writ of mandamus is issued to the
consolidation authorities to correct the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] High Court Bar Association V. Dy. Labour Commissioner, Allahabad and others
547
record and enter the name of the
petitioners
in
the
revenue
records
accordingly on the basis of the lease deed
in their favour.

6. However, in the facts and
circumstances, there shall be no order as
to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.7.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Special Appeal No. 430 of 2003

High Court Bar Association ...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Allahabad
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajit Kumar
Sri Mohit Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.S. Diwakar
S.C.

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972- S. 1 (3)-
Applicability-Held,
S.
1
(3)
is
not
applicable to High Court Bar Association
since it is not a factory, nine outfield,
plantation, post or railway company, nor
any shop or establishment-Further no
notification under S. 1 (3) (c) by Central
Government bringing High Court Bar
Association within purview of Act.

Held: Para 6

As regards clause (c) of Section 1 (3) of
the Payment of Gratuity Act this will
apply only when there is Central Govt.
notification in this behalf. We have not
been
shown
any
Central
Govt.
notification under clause (c) of the
Section 1 (3) which brings the High
Court Bar Association, Allahabad within
the purview of the Payment of Gratuity
Act. Hence it is clear that the Payment of
Gratuity Act 1972 does not apply to the
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad at
all.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohit Kumar learned
counsel
for
the
High
Court
Bar
Association, Allahabad. None appears for
respondents although the name of Sri A.S.
Diwakar has been shown in the cause list.

2. This special appeal has been filed
against the impugned judgment dated
7.5.03 of the learned Single Judge which
dismissed the writ petition of the High
Court Bar Association challenging the
order under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

3. In our opinion this special appeal
deserves to be allowed on the short point
that the Payment of Gratuity Act does not
apply to the High Court Bar Association
at all.
"Section 1(3) of the Payment of
Gratuity Act states :

(3) It shall apply to -
(a) every
factory,
mine,
oilfield,
plantation, port and railway company,

(b) every shop or establishment within
the meaning of any law for the time
being in force in relation to shops and
establishments in a State, in which ten or
more persons are employed, or were
employed, on any day of the preceding
twelve months.
(c) such other establishments or class of
establishments, in which ten or more
employees
are
employed
or
were
employed, on any day of the preceding
twelve months as the Central government
may, by notification, specify in this