# Ram Ratan & Anr v. Bhagwandeen & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 21
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-04-04
- **Bench:** Pramod Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-ratan-anr-v-bhagwandeen-ors-43572
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

4 All. (Deceased) Ram Ratan & Anr. Vs Bhagwandeen & Ors.
21
We direct that the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment shall be reconsidered by
the second and third respondents within a period of three months of the receipt of a certified copy
of this order.

8. The special appeal shall accordingly stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Second Appeal No.- 196 Of 2016

(Deceased) Ram Ratan & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Bhagwandeen & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Appellants:
Manish Kumar Nigam

Counsel for Respondents:
Satyendra Kumar Tripathi

HELD

A civil suit for cancellation of a sale deed and permanent injunction relating to agricultural land is
not maintainable where the question of title and bhumidhari rights has already been finally
adjudicated by consolidation authorities.

Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 creates a complete bar on the
jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts in respect of:

declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure-holders,

adjudication of rights arising out of consolidation proceedings, and

matters in respect of which proceedings could or ought to have been taken under the Consolidation Act.

Once a final decision regarding ownership/title of agricultural land has been rendered by the
Settlement Officer Consolidation, such dispute cannot be re-agitated before a civil court indirectly
by filing a suit for cancellation of sale deed or injunction.

Where the plaintiff's claim is founded on alleged bhumidhari rights, the civil court lacks
jurisdiction, as such declaration lies within the exclusive domain of revenue courts under the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950.
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 bars civil court jurisdiction in
matters where relief could be obtained from the revenue court, including declaration of bhumidhari
rights.

Even if possession is pleaded, injunction cannot be granted unless the plaintiff establishes lawful title or
bhumidhari rights, which the civil court is incompetent to declare in such cases.

During consolidation operations, all suits relating to agricultural land stand abated, and after consolidation,
disputes relating to title can be decided only by revenue courts, not civil courts.

Where the sale deed has been duly proved, and allegations of forgery, lack of consideration, fraud, or
illegality have failed on evidence, the suit for cancellation is liable to be dismissed on merits as well.

Concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court, being based on proper appreciation
of evidence and neither perverse nor illegal, cannot be interfered with in second appeal.

The issues raised relate to settled legal principles and do not give rise to any substantial question of
law under Section 100 CPC.

Consequently, the Second Appeal is dismissed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri
Jokhan Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents on admission of second appeal and perused the
records.

2. The plaintiffs have file original suit no. 150/1984 for cancellation of sale-deed dated
26.10.1977 executed on behalf of Dhan Dei in favour of defendants no. 1 & 2. The plaint case in
brief was that plaintiffs are owner and tenure holder of disputed agricultural property, and are in
possession of it. The sale-deed was sought to be cancelled on the grounds that this is a forged deed
not executed by Dhan Dei who was not in need of money to sell her property, this deed was
without payment of consideration and was illegal because it was executed during consolidation
proceedings but without permission of consolidation court. The plaintiffs also prayed for the relief
of permanent injunction restraining the defendants to interfere in the position of disputed property.

3. It has been admitted fact that before initiation of consolidation proceedings name of Smt.
Dhan Dei was recorded over disputed land, she executed sale-deed of said property. But during
beginning of the consolidation operation the name of father of plaintiff-appellants was mutated
after death of Smt. Dhan Dei. But the defendant-respondents file appeal in consolidation court, in
which compromise deed was filed on behalf of parties including present appellants. Said appeal
was allowed and name of defendant-respondents was mutated over disputed land. It is also
admitted fact that after completion of consolidation operation, the name of defendant-respondents
is still recorded, and appellants have moved the revenue court for mutation of their name over
disputed agricultural land which is still pending.
4 All. (Deceased) Ram Ratan & Anr. Vs Bhagwandeen & Ors.
23

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that although several grounds were raised in
memorandum of appeal but he is pressing only one ground as to whether the judgment of
Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 30.07. 1984 will bar the original suit and suit can be treated
as barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. His argument was that the
findings of lower courts on these points are erroneous, so appeal should be admitted for being
allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that that the plaintiff-appellant had failed to
prove those grounds which are mentioned in the plaint for cancellation of the sale-deed in question
so the relief regarding cancellation cannot be granted to the plaintiff-appellant, and unless said saledeed is cancelled the the plaintiff-appellant cannot get relief of injunction. He further submitted that
the ancillary relief in the suit was cancellation of sale-deed and injunction, but the main relief was
declaration of title of agricultural land which has already been decided by the consolidation court;
and now can be decided by revenue court only. Since the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide
the real dispute between the parties, therefore suit is barred by section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act and section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. So appeal should be dismissed.

6. Without cancellation of sale-deed in question, the plaintiff-appellant cannot claim his rights
over disputed property. So it has to be seen as to whether then appellant had been able to prove the
grounds for cancellation of sale-deed in question or not. In plaint the sale-deed was sought to be
cancelled on the grounds that this is a forged deed not executed by Dhan Dei who was not in need
of money to sell her property, this deed was without payment of consideration and was illegal
because it was executed during consolidation proceedings but without permission of consolidation
court. In this regard there are specific findings of trial court, as confirmed by the first appellate
court that the defendant-respondents have properly proved the execution of deed dated 26.10.1977
executed by Smt. Dhan Dei in favour of defendants no. 1 & 2, the plaintiff-appellant had not been
able to prove that Smt. Dhan Dei had no need of money at the time of execution of said sale-deed,
or said sale-deed was executed without payment of consideration money. Lower court have also
held that in present matter the vendor had sold whole share of her property so there was no
requirement of permission of consolidation court, and also that it has been proved that said saledeed was executed with freewill and without any fraud or misrepresentation. The conclusions of
lower courts are based on proper appreciation of entire evidences available on record, and are
apparently correct and acceptable. Such finding, being neither infirm or perverse, cannot be
interfered in second appeal by re-appreciation of evidences. Therefore the plaintiff-appellant had
failed to prove the grounds for cancellation of sale-deed dated 26.10.1977 executed by Smt. Dhan
Dei. So on merits his suit was rightly dismissed.

7. The only issue which has been pressed in the present second appeal is as to whether suit
filed by the plaintiff-appellant was barred by Section 49 of the UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953. The trial court and first appellate court had decided this issue with regard to bar under
Section 49 of the Act. Section 4, 5 and 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 being
germane are quoted below:
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"4. Declaration and notification regarding consolidation.-

(1) (a) The State Government may, where it; Is of opinion that a district or part thereof
may be brought under consolidation operations, make a declaration to that effect in the Gazette,
whereupon it shall become lawful for any officer or authority who may be empowered in this behalf
by the District Deputy Director of consolidation-

(i) to enter upon and survey, in connection with rectangulation or otherwise and to take
levels of any land in such area;

(ii) to fix pillars in connection with rectangulation, and

(iii) to do all acts necessary to ascertain the suitability of the area for consolidation
operations.

(b) The District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall cause public notice of the
declaration issued under Clause (a) to be given at convenient places in the said drstrict or part
thereof."

"5. Effect of notification under Section 4(2).- (1) Upon the publication of the
notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 in the Official Gazette, the consequences, as
hereinafter set forth, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, from the date specified thereunder
till the publication of notification under Section 52 or Sub section (1) of Section 6, as the case may
be, ensue in the area to which the notification under Section 4 (2) relates, namely-

(a) the district or part thereof, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be under
consolidation operations and the duty of maintaining the record of rights and preparing the village
map, the field book and the annual register of each village shall be performed by the District
Deputy Director of Consolidation, who shall maintain or prepare them, as the case may be, in
manner prescribed;

(b)*********

(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950, no tenure holder, except with the permission in writing of the Settlement
Officer, Consolidation, previously obtained shall-

(i) use his holding or any part thereof for purposes not connected with agriculture,
horticulture or animal husbandry including pisci-culture and poultry farming; or

(ii) ****** Provided that a tenure holder may continue to use his holding, or any part
thereof, for any purpose for which it was in use prior to the date specified in the notification issued
under Sub-section (2) of Section 4.
4 All. (Deceased) Ram Ratan & Anr. Vs Bhagwandeen & Ors.
25

(2) Upon the said publication of the notification under Sub Section (2) of Section 4, the
following further consequences shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely-

(a) every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceeding in
respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area, or for declaration or
adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this
Act, pending before any court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or
revision, shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the court or authority before whom such
suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated.

Provided that no such order shall be passed without giving to the parties notice by post
or in any other manner and after giving them an opportunity of being heard:

Provided further that on the issue of a notification under Sub-section (1) of-Section 6 in
respect of the said area or part thereof, every such order in relation to the land lying in such area
or part as the case may be, shall stand vacated;

(b) Such abatement shall be without prejudice to the rights of the persons affected to
agitate the right or interest in dispute in the said suits or proceedings before the appropriate
consolidation authorities under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules
made thereunder."

"49. Bar to civil jurisdiction: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of
land lying in an area, for which a notification has been issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 or
adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a
proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act, shall be done in accordance with the
provisions of the 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 the Act."

8. The bar contained in Section 49 contemplates bar of entertainment of suit by a civil or
revenue court in respect of following:

(a) the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders,

(b) adjudication of any other rights arising out of consolidation proceedings, and

(c) adjudication of any right in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been
taken under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

9. In view of the above, it is clear that any adjudication done with regard to land lying in the
area in which a notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been issued operates a bar of reagitating in any other revenue or civil Court. Second limb of
Section also creates a bar with regard to adjudication of any other right regarding which
proceedings could or ought to have been taken under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

10. From a perusal of Section 49 it is evident that declaration and adjudication of rights of
tenure-holders in respect of land lying in an area for which a notification has been issued under
Section 4(2) and adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in
regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act, had to be done in
accordance with the provision of the Act only and the jurisdiction of the civil or revenue courts to
entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other
matter for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act, has been taken
away. The language used in Section 49 is wide and comprehensive. Declaration and adjudication of
rights of tenure-holders in respect of land lying in the area covered by the notification under
Section 4(2) of the Act and adjudication of any other right arising out of the consolidation
proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act,
would cover adjudication of questions as to title in respect of the said lands. This view also finds
support from the other provisions of the Act.

11. In present matter the the judgment of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 30.07. 1984
had finally decided the dispute of ownership of disputed agricultural land in favour of defendantrespondents. Said court was competent court to decide said matter. Therefore said matter cannot be
re-agitated in civil court indirectly by plaintiff-appellants in garb of suit for cancellation of saledeed or suit for permanent injunction. Such suit is barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953. The finding of lower court in this regard is found correct and is hereby
confirmed.

12. In present matter the basis of claim of his relief sought in plaint is bhumidhari rights
acquired by plaintiff-appellant. Even in the relief clause of the plaint, it is prayed that defendants be
restrained from interfering in the bhumidhar rights and possession of plaintiff disputed property as
enemy property, therefore, admittedly, the plaint case and relief sought by appellant in his plaint is
based on his alleged bhumidhari rights of plaintiff-appellant. The sale-deed in favour of defendants
can be cancelled and they can restrained from interfering in bhumidhari rights of plaintiff, as
prayed in plaint, only if they are declared bhumidhar or their bhumidhari rights are formally
recognized by civil court.

13. The suit of plaintiff-appellant has been based on claim of his ownership and bhumidhari
rights over disputed agricultural land, for which the plea of bar of suit under Section 331 of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was taken by defendants in their written-statement.Section- 331 of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 reads as under:

"331. Cognizance of suits, etc under this Act.- (1) Except as provided by or under this
Act no court other than a court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding
an~hing contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (5 of 1908) take cognizance of any suit,
4 All. (Deceased) Ram Ratan & Anr. Vs Bhagwandeen & Ors.
27
application or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be
obtained by means of any such suit or application:

Provided that where a declaration has been made under Section 143 in respect of
any holding or part thereof, the provisions of Schedule II in so far as they relate to suit,
application or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or part
thereof;

Explanation- If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be
granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court
may not be identical to that which the revenue court would have granted."

14. This section provides that no court other than court mentioned in Column 4 of
Schedule II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in C.P.C., take cognizance of any
suit, application or proceedings, mentioned in Column 3 thereof, or of a suit, application or
proceedings based on cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by
means of any such suit or application. In Schedule II of this Act serial number-34 of
Column-3 deals with ''Suit for declaration of rights'; and in front of it in column-4 the
name of court of original jurisdiction is given as ''Assistant Collector, 1st Class'.

15. The present case of plaintiff-appellant is based on claim that he is owner and
bhumidhar of disputed land. Admittedly the name of defendants-respondents are recorded
as bhumidhar on disputed land i.e. agricultural 'land' as defined in UPZA & LR Act. Even
the alleged relief of permanent injunction regarding disputed land is also based on the
relief of declaration of title of disputed agricultural 'land'. Therefore it is explicitly clear
that only the court of Assistant Collector has jurisdiction to grant these reliefs, and Civil
Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit or other proceeding based on cause of action for
declaration of ownership rights of such agricultural land. So this finding of first appellate
court is perfectly correct and is being upheld that plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of
declaration of bhumidhari rights which is within exclusive jurisdiction of revenue courts.
From above discussion, it is clear and proved that main relief sought by plaintiff-appellants
are based on declaration of their alleged right of bhumidhari over disputed agricultural
land but it cannot be granted to the appellants, and therefore, claim of plaintiff/appellant is
barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, so appellant is not entitled for any relief
claim in spite of his possession.

16. When an agricultural land had undergone in the consolidation proceedings, then all suits relating to
such land would be abated and jurisdiction to decide all rights, title relating to it, would shift to Consolidation
Court only. Admittedly after completion of consolidation proceedings and preparation of land records, the
jurisdiction of declaration of title of agricultural land goes exclusively in jurisdiction of revenue courts. In
present case consolidation proceedings of disputed lands were undergoing during proceedings of the trial
court for which documents of consolidation proceedings of Form-45 was adduced in evidence. Therefore the
suit of the plaintiff-appellant could not be heard and decided by civil court for determining his alleged
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bhumidhari rights. After consolidation proceedings, the disputed property was declared as enemy property
within ownership of State. In revenue records it is recorded accordingly. Therefore unless it is declared
otherwise by competent revenue court, its title shall remain vest in the State. Therefore the bhumidhari rights
of plaintiff-appellant over disputed land cannot be accepted, recognized or determined by the civil court. So
the plaintiff's suit for the relief of claim in plaint was barred by provisions of Section-49 of the Consolidation
of Holdings Act. Therefore the period during the period when consolidation proceedings were being carried
out suit in hand was barred by section-49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, and after completion of said
consolidation proceedings, the plaintiffs' claim in original suit is barred by provisions of Section 331 of
UPZA & LR Act. So the civil court had no jurisdiction to grant the actual relief sought by plaintiff/ appellant
which can be granted only after declaring him or recognizing him as bhumidhar with transferable rights of
disputed agricultural property. In these circumstances, there appears no error, irregularity or illegality in the
judgments of two courts below.

17. These points relate to question of law, but are not substantial question of law. On the basis of
admitted facts mentioned in plaint itself, plaintiff's suit was barred by provisions of law because plaintiff
being not recorded as tenure holder is not entitled to get the requested relief of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants, who are recorded tenure holders of disputed in revenue records, after the litigation
before the consolidation court and the judgment of Settlement Officer Consolidation whose judgment had
become final and on basis of which revenue records were prepared.

18. On examination of the reasoning recorded by the trial court, which are affirmed by the learned first
appellate court in first appeal, I am of the view that the judgments of the trial court as well as the first
appellate court are well reasoned, based upon proper appreciation of the entire record, especially the plaint.
No question of substantial question of law was involved in the case before this Court. No perversity or
infirmity is found in the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court that has been affirmed by the first
appellate court to warrant interference in this appeal. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the
appellant- plaintiffs can be sustained.

19. In view of the above, this Court finds that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The
second appeal is dismissed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J.

Writ Petition / Service Single No.- 320 Of 2005 (S/S)

Dujai Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties