# Ramayan Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 594
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-04-10
- **Case number:** C.M.W.P. No. 20101 of 2015
- **Bench:** Ran Vijai Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramayan-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43167
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953Section 5(2)-Abatement of declaratory
suit-on publication of notification u/s 4 of
the Act-village in question brought under
consolidation scheme-SDO-refused to pass
order-even on application by petitioner-in
absence of direction of higher authoritiesheld-no scope of interference by higher
authorities in judicial function of CourtSDO-mislead himself-patently illegal and
arbitrary-quashed-with
fresh
direction
accordingly.
Held: Para-6
In view of the provisions contained
under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the
Act
all
the
proceeding
regarding
declaration of right etc. shall stand
abated after notificaiton under subsection (2) of Section 4 of the Act after
notice to the parties. The Sub Divisional
2 All] Ramayan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
595
Officer was exercising power of the court
while deciding the petitioners' application.
For deciding the cases pending before the
court the direction of the authorities is not
necessary. The cases have to be decided
on the basis of the provisions contained
under the Statute for such purpose. There
is
no
scope
of
interference
of
the
authorities in the judicial functions of the
court. The Sub Divisional Officer has
mislead himself by observing that unless a
direction of the higher authority is given
the cases cannot be abated. The view
taken by the Sub Divisional Officer is
patently illegal and arbitrary. The Sub
Divisional Officer is directed to pass a fresh
order
on
the
petitioners'
application
ignoring the earlier order passed by him on
11.3.2015 on the basis of the statutory
provisions as mentioned herein above and
the arguments advanced by the counsel
for the parties.

## Text

594
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for cancellation of his caste certificate
was to be initiated against him. As such,
very initiation of the proceedings for
cancellation of the caste certificate of the
petitioner cannot be justified in law."
10. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, perusing the relevant material
on record and considering the judgments
cited at Bar, I find that the petitioner was
issued caste certificate of 'Gond' treating
him to be a Scheduled Tribe. On the basis
of the same caste certificate he obtained
appointment. On being enquired by the
department from the Tehsidlar about the
caste of the petitioner, the Tehsildar
submitted report denying the certificate of
the petitioner. I find that the judgments
cited by the petitioner fully support his
case. There was no complaint regarding
genuineness of the certificate of the
petitioner. The department has only
enquired whether such certificate has been
issued or not. The Tehsildar had gone
beyond the query and submitted another
report declaring that the petitioner does not
belong to 'Gond' community, which is not
a
scheduled
tribe
community.
The
Tehsildar was required to only verify the
issuance of the caste certificate and not its
correctness. Once the Tehsildar had
verified the issuance of the said certificate,
it had no power or jurisdiction to provide
for review of the issuance of the said caste
certificate
or
recommend
for
its
cancellation, specially when there was no
complaint by any authority or person with
regard to the correctness of the same. It is
also relevant to mention that by letter dated
24.1.2008
the
District
Development
Officer, Chandauli had only asked from
the Tehsildar, Lalganj whether 'Gond' caste
is Scheduled Tribe or not. The Tehsildar
has overstepped the issue and denied the
caste of the petitioner.
11. In view of the above, the writ
petition is allowed. The impugned orders
dated 14.2.2008 and 19.3.2008 are hereby
quashed.
The
District
Magistrate,
Azamgarh is directed to consider the
grievance of the petitioner and decide his
claim within a period of six weeks from
the date a certified copy of this order is
produced before him.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 20101 of 2015
Ramayan Singh & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.P. Paul, Sri B.B. Paul
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953Section 5(2)-Abatement of declaratory
suit-on publication of notification u/s 4 of
the Act-village in question brought under
consolidation scheme-SDO-refused to pass
order-even on application by petitioner-in
absence of direction of higher authoritiesheld-no scope of interference by higher
authorities in judicial function of CourtSDO-mislead himself-patently illegal and
arbitrary-quashed-with
fresh
direction
accordingly.
Held: Para-6
In view of the provisions contained
under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the
Act
all
the
proceeding
regarding
declaration of right etc. shall stand
abated after notificaiton under subsection (2) of Section 4 of the Act after
notice to the parties. The Sub Divisional
2 All] Ramayan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
595
Officer was exercising power of the court
while deciding the petitioners' application.
For deciding the cases pending before the
court the direction of the authorities is not
necessary. The cases have to be decided
on the basis of the provisions contained
under the Statute for such purpose. There
is
no
scope
of
interference
of
the
authorities in the judicial functions of the
court. The Sub Divisional Officer has
mislead himself by observing that unless a
direction of the higher authority is given
the cases cannot be abated. The view
taken by the Sub Divisional Officer is
patently illegal and arbitrary. The Sub
Divisional Officer is directed to pass a fresh
order
on
the
petitioners'
application
ignoring the earlier order passed by him on
11.3.2015 on the basis of the statutory
provisions as mentioned herein above and
the arguments advanced by the counsel
for the parties.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner
is permitted to correct the description of
the respondent no.60.
2. Heard Sri B.B.Paul along with Sri
A.P.Paul,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the State-respondents and
the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
3. This writ petition has been filed
with the following prayers:
"1. issue a writ of mandamus in the
nature of declaration that upon start of
consolidation operation and till closing
thereof revenue court has no jurisdiction,
order of direction in the nature of
mandamus prohibition commanding the
respondent no.2 personally arrayed as
respondent no.3 not to decide declaratory
suit no. 87/211 of 2004 in re: Smt.
Ramaraji vs. State of U.P. and others and
(2) Suit No. 88/212 of 2014 in re: Smt.
Ramraji vs. Ambika Prasad and (3) Suit
no. 89/213 in re: Smt. Ramraji vs. State of
U.P. and others now bearing composite
Case No. 32/37/96/88/212/87/211/89/213
of 2015.
2. issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent no. 2 to abate declaratory
suits between the parties under section
5(2) of U.P. C.H. Act personally arrayed
as respondent no.3 to abate declaratory
Suits NO. 87/211 of 2004 in re. Smt.
Ramaraji vs. State of U.P.
3. issue ad interim mandamus
staying further proceeding of declaratory
suits between the parties,being suit no.
87/211 of 2004 in re: Smt. Ramaraji vs.
State of U.P. and others and (2) Suit No.
88/212 of 2014 in re: Smt. Ramraji vs.
Ambika Prasad and (3) Suit no. 89/213 in
re: Smt. Ramraji vs. State of U.P. and
others
presently
bearing
Case
No.
32/37/96/88/212/87/211/89/213 of 2015
pending before S.D.O. Tehsil Lalganj,
district Mirzapur.
4. issue any other suitable writ,
order or direction, which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Award cost of the writ petition in
favour of the petitioner."
4. In substance the petitioner
appears to be aggrieved by non abatement
of the aforesaid suits under sub-section
(2) of Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) on account of
notification under sub-section (2) of
Section 4 of the Act. It is contended by
Sri Paul that aforesaid suits are pending
since 2004 in which the petitioners are
defendants. The land in dispute is situated
in village Hateheda, Tehsil
Lalganj,
596
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
District Mirzapur. The village has been
notified in the Gazette Notification dated
26th December, 2013 under sub-section
(2) of Section 4 of the Act. It is submitted
that
the
petitioners
have
filed
an
application for abatement of the suit under
sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act but
the court concerned has rejected the
petitioners' application on the ground that
unless some written order from the higher
authority is obtained the suits cannot be
abated.
5. Sub section (2) of Section 5 of the
Act reads under:
"(2) Upon the said publication of
notification under sub-section (2) of
Section
4,
the
following
further
consequences shall ensure 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.
(b) such abatement shall be without
prejudice to the rights of the persons
affected to agitate the right or interest
indispute 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."
6. In view of the provisions
contained under sub-section (2) of Section
5 of the Act all the proceeding regarding
declaration of right etc. shall stand abated
after notificaiton under sub-section (2) of
Section 4 of the Act after notice to the
parties. The Sub Divisional Officer was
exercising power of the court while
deciding the petitioners' application. For
deciding the cases pending before the
court the direction of the authorities is not
necessary. The cases have to be decided
on the basis of the provisions contained
under the Statute for such purpose. There
is no scope of interference of the
authorities in the judicial functions of the
court. The Sub Divisional Officer has
mislead himself by observing that unless a
direction of the higher authority is given
the cases cannot be abated. The view
taken by the Sub Divisional Officer is
patently illegal and arbitrary. The Sub
Divisional Officer is directed to pass a
fresh order on the petitioners' application
ignoring the earlier order passed by him
on 11.3.2015 on the basis of the statutory
provisions as mentioned herein above and
the arguments advanced by the counsel
for the parties.
7.

With
the
aforesaid
observation/direction this writ petition is
disposed of.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.04.2015
BEFORE