# S.G.V.S. Ltd. Ghaziabad v. State of U.P. & others

- **Citation:** (1999) 2 ILRA 95
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/s-g-v-s-ltd-ghaziabad-v-state-of-u-p-others-39348
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
95
Sewa Samiti Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1988 UPLBEC 555 and
the case of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Vs. Presiding Officer reported in
1993(67) FLR 87.

18. In this connection it may also be noticed that the co-operative
society had been held to be Industry within the meaning of industrial
law by the seven member Constitution Bench of apex court it case of
Bangalore Water Supply Vs. R.Rajappa reported in A.I.R. 1978 SC
548.

19. In view of aforesaid position in law and in particular decision of
Division Bench of this court interpreting Regulation 103 also and
being fully in respectful agreement with the said finding, I am of the
opinion that the judgements in support of the contentions of the
employer can not be applied and law which is required to be
followed is that decided by the Division Bench in the case of Jai
Kishun (supra) holding that for an employee of a Co-operative
society not the forum provided by Regulation but the forum provided
by Regulation but the forum provided by labour law prevailing is to
be availed of.

20. In view of aforesaid findings, no interference can be made with
impugned award and the writ petition is hereby dismissed.

Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7('
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
 $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6+,7/$ 35$6$' 65,9$67$9$ -
7+( +21·%/( 6+,7/$ 35$6$' 65,9$67$9$ -

&,9,/ 0,6& :5,7 3(7,7,21 12 2)

5DP 6ZDUXS DQRWKHU
« 3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH %RDUG RI 5HYHQXH 8WWDU 3UDGHVK
$OODKDEDG RWKHUV
« 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
 0U 6DW\D 3UDNDVK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV

1999
------
S.G.V.S. Ltd.
Ghaziabad
 Vs.
State of U.P.
 & others.
------
Aloke
Chakrabarti,J.
1999
------
April, 8
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
96
$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLDWKH RUGHU SDVVHG E\ ''&
UHPDQGLQJ WKH FDVH EHIRUH WKH &RQVROLGDWLRQ RIILFHU ZDV ZLWKRXW
MXULVGLFWLRQ DV DIWHU QRWLILFDWLRQ XQGHU VHFWLRQ RI $FW KH KDV QR
MXULVGLFWLRQ WR HQWHUWDLQ WKH UHYLHZ DSSOLFDWLRQ DQG UHPDQG WKH
FDVH ± ULJKW ZDV DFTXLUHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKH VDOHGHHG GDWHG
 WKH RUGHU RI &RQVROLGDWLRQ $XWKRULW\ RQ WKH FRPSURPLVH
FDQQRW EH VDLG WR
EHD EDU XQGHU VHFWLRQ RI &RQVROLGDWLRQ RI
+ROGLQJV $FW

By the Court.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order dated
31.8.1981 (Annexure-2 to the petition) passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly and order dated 9.7.1982
(annexure-3 to the petition) passed by the Board of Revenue and
further for relief of writ of mandamus commanding the opposite
parties not to interfere in the possession of the petitioners over the
land in dispute on the basis of the impugned orders of opposite party
now. 1 and 2 or on any other basis.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition as stated by the
petitioners are that plot no. 198 measuring 3.25 acres of village
Naugawan, Pargana Pooranpur, District Pillibhit was recorded in the
basic year khatauni at the time of consolidation in the name of
Raghoubir Sahai. One Smt. Ram Dulari filed an objection under
Section 9-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) claiming 1/3rd share in the said plot on the
basis of the family pedigree. The Consolidation Officer Rejected the
objection of Smt. Ram Dulari. She preferred an appeal before the
Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was dismissed on 1.3.1968,
thereafter, the revision filed by her was also dismissed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation on 26.4.1968 and notification under
Section 52 of the Act was made on 16.8.1969. Raghubir transferred
the holding in suit on 26.8.1969 in favour of Data Ram, father of
respondent nos. 3 to 7. Then she filed a review application before the
Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation on 4.12.1969 and the case was remanded
to the Consolidation Officer for deciding it afresh on merit.

3. It is stated that when the matter reached to the consolidation
Officer, Data Ram, father of respondent nos. 3 to 7 filed application
for impleadment, claiming that Raghubir Sahai had sold the land in
dispute to him on 26.8.1969, therefore he should be impleaded.
1999
------
Ram Swarup
& another
 Vs.
B.R, U.P.
Allahabad &
others.
------
Shitla Prasad
Srivastava,J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
97
Petitioner's contention is that the parties entered into compromise
before the Consolidation Officer for deciding the case in terms of the
compromise and before the Consolidation Officer, Data Ram, father
of the respondent nos. 3 to 7 made a statement that as there has been
a compromise in the case between smt. Ram Dulari and Raghubir
Sahai, therefore, he does not want to say anything and his application
for impleadment may be rejected. Accordingly, on the basis of the
compromise dated 11.5.1970, Smt. Ram Dulari executed a sale deed
in favour of the petitioners on 25.6.1971 and since then, the
petitioners are in continuous possession. It is further stated that as
Data Ram had threatened the petitioners to take possession of the
land in dispute, therefore, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
were started and was decided in favour of the petitioners.

4. The petitioners have alleged that Data Ram, father of the
respondent nos. 3 to 7 filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and L and Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to
as the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act) but it was dismissed as withdrawn on
4.5.74, then Data Ram again filed a Suit No.21/1978-79 under
Section 229-B/209 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which was dismissed on
18.101979 by the trial court. An appeal was filed by Data Ram
against the judgment passed by the trial court and during the
pendency of the appeal, he died and his heirs, respondent nos. 3 to 7
were substituted. The appeal was allowed by the Additional
Commissioner on 31.8.1981. The petitioners filed a Second Appeal
against the judgment of the Additiional Commissioner, which was
dismissed on 9.7.1982. The petitioners have challenged these two
judgments by way of the present writ petition.

5. The grounds of attack against the impugned judgment by the
petitioners are that the suit which was filed by Data Ram was barred
by the provisions of Section 49 of the Act, therefore, the impugned
judgment is illegal. It was contended that the findings of the courts
below that the right of Raghubir Sahai were extinguished under
Section 189 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act on executing the sale deed
dated 27.8.1969 in favour of Data Ram is also incorrect. It is also
contended that the findings of the court below that Ram Dulari filed
a review application in collusion with Raghbir is also incorrect. It is
further contended that Data Ram has filed application before the
Consolidation Officer when the matter was remanded by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation on the review application of Smt. Ram
Dulari and a compromise was filed before the consolidation Officer
in presence of Data Ram and Smt. Ram Dulari was given one-third
1999
------
Ram Swarup
& another
 Vs.
B.R, U.P.
Allahabad &
others.
------
Shitla Prasad
Srivastava,J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
98
share and Data Ram gave a statement that he does not want to press
the application for impleadment, therefore, the principle of estoppel
will apply against Data Ram and Data Ram was bound by the
compromise filed before the Consolidation Officer and thereafter,
when Raghubir Sahai executed sale deed in favour of the petitioners,
Data Ram could not say that he is not bound by the compromise. It
was further contended that the findings given by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation before the notification under Section 52 of the Act
was not final, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had
jurisdiction to review the judgment and parties are bound by the
judgment given by the consolidation Officer on the basis of the
compromise

6. A counter affidavit was filed. In the counter affidavit, it is stated
that the sale deed was executed, after denotification under Section 52
of the Act, in favour of Data Ram by Raghubir Sahai, therefore, the
right, title, and interest in respect of Raghubir Sahai, the plot in
dispute were extinguished in under Section 189 of U.P.Z.A..& L.R.
Act. When proceedings under Section 9 of the Act were started, Smt.
Ram Dulari claimed her share but she lost her case from the courts of
Consolidation Officer. Settlement Officer Consolidation and finally
from the Deputy Director of Consolidation and then, there was a
notification under Section 52 of the Act. Data Ram purchased
property from Raghubir Sahai subsequent to the judgment of the
Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision after denotification,
therefore, the Deputy Director Consolidation had no jurisdiction
entertain the review application filed by Smt. Ram Dulari and
remand the case to the Consolidation Officer to decide afresh. The
order of remand is without jurisdiction and nullity. It is further
contended that as Data Ram was not a party in the consolidation
proceddings and he had only applied for being impleaded before the
conslidation officer after remand and as the order of remand was
itself without jurisdiction, therefore, even if Data Tam gave a
statement thathis application for impleadment may be rejected he is
not bound by the compromise arrived at between Raghubir Sahi and
Smt. Ram Dulari as he was not party to the Consolidation
proceedings and principle of estoppel will not apply against him.
Further contention is that when Raghubir had already sold the
property in favour of Daya Ram and on the basis of conclusive
compromise that too in the proceedings which was illegal and
without jurisdiction, no right of Raghubir Sahai could be curtailed
and he has no right to make second transfer of property in favour of
the petitioners of the basis of compromise and suit was not barred
1999
------
Ram Swarup
& another
 Vs.
B.R, U.P.
Allahabad &
others.
------
Shitla Prasad
Srivastava,J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
99
under Section49 of the Act. It is further contended in the counter
affidavit that even after dismissal of the application of Data Ram for
impleadment and his statement, if any, cannot take away the right
which was acquired by him on the basis of the sale deed dated
26.8.1969.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have pursed the
record. The trial court dismissed the suit of Data Ram with the
finding that he was bound by his statement given before the
Consolidation Officer after the case was remanded by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation on the review application. It was also held
by the trial court that if the revision which was filed by Smt. Ram
Dulari was pending Deputy Director of Consolidation before the date
of notification under Section 52 of the Act, then the review
application was maintainable and order passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation remainding the case to Consolidation
Officer was not without jurisdiction and as the right of Smt. Ram
dulari and Raghubir Sahai were decided on the basis of the
compromise, the suit of the plaintiff was barred under Section 49 of
the Act. Learned Commissioner on the appeal filed by the plaintiff
Data Ram, who died during the pendency of the appeal held that
when notification under Section52 was made and Data Ram
purchased the property from Raghubir after denotification, then the
Deputy Director of Consolidation had no authority or jurisdiction to
entertain the review application filed by Smt. Ram Dulari. It has also
been held by the first appellate court that on 26.8.69, the right,
interest and title of Raghubir Sahai was extinguished under Section
189 of U.P.L.A. & L.R. Act, the appeal was accordingly allowed. In
the Second Appeal filed by petitioners, the Board of Revenue has
held that after the denotification under Section 52 of the Act, the
Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to entertain the
review application and remand the case before the Consolidation
Officer, therefore, the order of remand being without jurisdiction is
nullity.

8. Before disclosing the controversy, it is necessary to see the effect
of Section 189 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. This provision of law deals
with the extinction of the interest of a bhumidhar with transferable
rights. Section 189 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is quoted below :-

"189. Extinction of the interest of a
bhumidhar with transferable rights:- The
interest of a bhumidhar with transferable
1999
------
Ram Swarup
& another
 Vs.
B.R, U.P.
Allahabad &
others.
------
Shitla Prasad
Srivastava,J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
100
rights in his holding or any part thereof shall
be extinguished-

(a) when he dies intestate leaving no; heir entitled
to inherit in accordance with the provisions of
this Act;

(aa) when the holding or part thereof has been
transferred or let out in contravention of the
provisions of this Act;

(b) when the land comprised in the holding has
been acquired under nay law for the time
being in force relating to the acquisition of
land; or

(c) when he has been deprived of possession and
his right to recover possession is barred by
limitation."

9. A bare perusal of this provision would show that on 26.8.1969
when Raghubir Sahai who was recorded in the revenue record
transferred his holding after the judgment was delivered by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation in his favour and a notification
was made under Section 52 of the Act then whatever right Raghubir
Sahai had came to an end under Section 189 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that from the judgment
of the Consolidation Officer, it is apparent that the order of the
Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision was not final, therefore,
the findings recorded by the Commissioner or the Board of Revenue
is not correct and compromise is binding.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents has urged, in reply, that as
there was no jurisdiction with the Deputy Director of Consolidation
to entertain the review application, therefore, any proceeding after
denotification under Section 52 of the Act was without jurisdiction
and Data Ram who was not party to any proceedings, he is not bound
by the compromise merely because he filed application and got it
rejected. Learned counsel for the respondents has further urged that
the Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising power of
revision vested in him under the Act exercises quasi judicial powers
and in the absence of any provision in the Consolidation Act, which
expressly or by necessary implication vests in him the power of
1999
------
Ram Swarup
& another
 Vs.
B.R, U.P.
Allahabad &
others.
------
Shitla Prasad
Srivastava,J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
101
review, he cannot exercise such power. For that purpose he has
placed a full Bench case reported in 1997 A.L.L.J.2363 (Smt.
Dhivraji and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad
and others).

11. A bare perusal of this decision would show that full Bench in
paragraph 24 of the judgment has held as under:-

"On the authoritative pronouncements made
by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned
decisions, the legal position which is manifest is that
the Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising
the power of revision vested in him under the
Consolidation Act exercises quasi judicial powers and
in the absence of nay provision in the Consolidation
Act, which expressly or by necessary implication
vests in him the power of review, he cannot exercise
such power. It follows that the Deputy Director of
Consolidation is not competent to revive a revision
proceeding disposed of by final order on a review
application filed by one of the parties.

12. Further on the point of jurisdiction, the finding was given by the
Full Bench in paragraph 35, which is reproduced as under :-

"Coming to the provisions of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, it is our considered
view that the consolidation authorities, particularly the
Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding a
revision petition exercises judicial or quasi-juridical
power and, therefore his order is final subject to any
power of appeal or revision vested in superior
authorities
under
the
Act.
The
Consolidation
authorities particularly the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, is not vested with any power of review
of his order and, therefore, cannot reopen any
proceedings and cannot review or revise his earlier
order. However, as judicial or quasi-judicial authority,
he
has
the
power
to
correct
any
clerical
mistake/arithmetical error manifest error in his order
in exercise of his inherent power as a tribunal."

1999
------
Ram Swarup
& another
 Vs.
B.R, U.P.
Allahabad &
others.
------
Shitla Prasad
Srivastava,J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
102
13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, at length, I am
of the view that this writ petition has no force. From a perusal of the
documents available on record, and the judgments, it is clear that
Data Ram had purchased the property on 26.8.1969 and revision by
Smt. Ram Dulari before the Deputy Director of Consolidation was
dismissed on 26.8.68 and the notification under Section 52 of the Act
was made on 16.8.69, the review was allowed on 4.12.1969 and
compromise was arrived at on 8.9.1970. The petitioners purchase the
property from Raghubir Sahai on 25.6.71, therefore, the Data Ram
father of opposite parties being the first purchasers in time acquired
right, title and interest on the basis of the sale deed and right, title
and interest of Raghubir Sahai came to an end in respect of the
property in question on the date, therefore, he had no right to enter
into compromise before the Consolidation Officer and to execution
of the sale deed in favour of the petitioners.I am also of the view
that the order passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation
remanding the case before the Consolidation Officer was also
without jurisdiction as after notification under Section 52 of the Act,
he has no jurisdiction entertain the review application and remand
the case. Since Data Ram has simply applied for the impleadment
before the Consolidation Officer when he was not party, the
judgments of the Consolidation authorities, if he got his application
dismissed for any reason, it would
 not amount to admission of
right, title and interest of Smt. Ram Dulari or will not operate as
estoppel against him so far as right which he acquired on the basis of
the sale deed dated 26.8.69, therefore, the order of the Consolidation
authorities on the compromise cannot be said to be bar under Section
49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act rather Smt. Ram Dulari and
Raghubir Sahai wre bound by the order passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation in revision which was decided on
26.4.1968 which was final.

14. The writ petition, therefore, has no force and is dismissed.

Petition Dismissed.

1999
------
Ram Swarup
& another
 Vs.
B.R, U.P.
Allahabad &
others.
------
Shitla Prasad
Srivastava,J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
103

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
+21
%/( '. 6(7+ -
+21
%/( '. 6(7+ -

&,9,/ 0,6& :5,7 3(7,7,21 12 2)

$UYLQG .XPDU
« 3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
7KH 'LUHFWRU 5DM\D .ULVKL 8WSDGDQ 0DQGL
3DULVKDG 83 RWKHUV
« 5HVSRQGHQWV

$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD WKH SHWLWLRQHU FDQQRW FODLP
DQ\ OHJDO ULJKW WR EH DSSRLQWHG HYHQ ZKHQ KH LV DSSRLQWHG RQ D
VXEVWDQWLYH YDFDQF\ LI KH KDV EHHQ DSSRLQWHG DJDLQVW WKH UXOHV KH
FDQQRW FODLP WR EH JRYHUQHG E\ WKH UHJXODWLRQ LI KH ZDV QRW
HQJDJHG SXUVXDQW WR VDLG UHJXODWLRQ

By the Court

1. The petitioner was appointed on 4th May, 1991 on daily wage
basis for a period of 30 days. Subsequently, the Deputy Director of
Administration directed the Secretary, Mandi Samity, Bareilly to
appoint the petitioner as Typist on a consolidated pay of Rs. 1200/-
p.m. and accorded sanction for payment of salary for the period
July,1991 till November, 1991. Subsequently by an order dated 31st
March, 1992, sanction for payment of salary of Rs.1200/- p.m. .was
accorded for the post held by the petitioner. By an order dated 4th
September,1992, the petitioner's service was terminated. This order
was challenged by the petitioner in writ petition No. 4155 of 1993
since been dismissed by an order dated 3rd Feb., 1993 with the
observation that if any vacancy arises, the petitioner shall be given
preference in appointment when such appointment is made by the
respondents, provided the petitioner fulfils the qualification. Pursuant
to the said judgement, the petitioner had made an application on 6th
April,1993 and continued to submit successive application on 10th
June, 1994 2nd October, 1995 and 6th January, 1996 and thereafter, on
23rd November, 1996. By an order dated 1st January 1997, the
Additional Director, Administration sent an communication to the
Deputy Director, (Administration) Mandi Parishad, Bareilly to the
effect that in the event the post of Accounts Clerk falls vacant, the
petitioner's case may be considered for appointment in terms of the
1999
------
April, 2