# Smt. Rani Jai Ratan Kaur v. D.D.C. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 2346
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-20
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 9357 of 1978
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-rani-jai-ratan-kaur-v-d-d-c-ors-opp-parties-52072
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950,
Chapter IX-A - Sections 240-G & 240-H -
Compensation
statement
amounts
to
adjudication of title between the land
holder and the person claiming Adhivasi
right and principles of res-judicata and
constructive res-judicata will apply only to
Adhivasi who was party to proceedings.
Judgment passed u/s 240-G of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act operate as res-judicata in the
consolidation proceeding.

B. The court examined the order sheet of
the case u/s 240-G of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act, as well as the judgment passed by the
Additional S.D.O. dated 13.8.1958 in Suit
No. 191 of 1957-58, which showed that
issues were framed, reference was made,
objections were filed by respondent nos. 3
& 4, and evidence was adduced by both
parties.
Additional
S.D.O.
held
that
respondent nos. 3 & 4 were entitled to be
recorded as Asami, and their claim for
Sirdari rights was rejected. Based on the
order
dated
13.8.1958,
which
had
attained finality, petitioner no. 1 remained
recorded as Bhumidhar, even in the basic
year of the consolidation operation, i.e.,

## Text

2346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2346
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-B No. 9357 of 1978

Smt. Rani Jai Ratan Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Swaraj Prakash, S. Shekhar, Sushil Kumar
Mishra. V.B. Upadhyaya, V.K. Singh, Vinod Kumar

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Anil Bhushan, Arpan Srivastava, C.P. Singh,
Neelabh Srivastava, S.C., V.K. Upadhyay

A. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950,
Chapter IX-A - Sections 240-G & 240-H -
Compensation
statement
amounts
to
adjudication of title between the land
holder and the person claiming Adhivasi
right and principles of res-judicata and
constructive res-judicata will apply only to
Adhivasi who was party to proceedings.
Judgment passed u/s 240-G of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act operate as res-judicata in the
consolidation proceeding.

B. The court examined the order sheet of
the case u/s 240-G of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act, as well as the judgment passed by the
Additional S.D.O. dated 13.8.1958 in Suit
No. 191 of 1957-58, which showed that
issues were framed, reference was made,
objections were filed by respondent nos. 3
& 4, and evidence was adduced by both
parties.
Additional
S.D.O.
held
that
respondent nos. 3 & 4 were entitled to be
recorded as Asami, and their claim for
Sirdari rights was rejected. Based on the
order
dated
13.8.1958,
which
had
attained finality, petitioner no. 1 remained
recorded as Bhumidhar, even in the basic
year of the consolidation operation, i.e.,
1971. Judgment dated 13.8.1958, passed
u/s 240-G of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,
operated
as
res
judicata
in
the
consolidation
proceedings.
Held:
The
court found that there was proper
compliance with Section 240-H of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The finding of Deputy
Director of Consolidation, that the record
does not establish that the judgment u/s
240-G of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was
passed by a competent authority was
wholly
illegal.
Consolidation
Officer's
order directing that respondent no. 3 shall
be recorded as Asami and not as Sirdar
was upheld. (Para 15)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of cases cited:

1. Awdhesh Singh & anr. Vs Bikarma Ahir &
ors. A.I.R. 1975 Allahabad 324

2. Sukhram Singh & anr. Vs Smt. Harbheji
A.I.R. 1969 Supreme Court 1114

3. Mirdad & ors. Vs Board of Revenue & ors.
A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 94

4. Maqbool Raza Vs Joint Director of
Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow & ors. 1967 RD
440

5. Sukhram Singh Vs Smt. Harbheji 1969 RD
165

6. Amba Prasad Vs Mahaboob Ali Shah & ors.
A.I.R. 1965 Supreme Court 54

7. Smt.Sonawati & ors. Vs Sri Ram & ors. A.I.R.
1968 Supreme Court 466

8. Preetam Singh (Dead) by Lrs & ors. Vs
Assistant Director of Consolidation & ors. JT
1996 (1) SC 471

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Shri V.K. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S. Shekhar,
5 All. Smt. Rani Jai Ratan Kaur Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
2347
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anil
Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Shri Arpan Shrivastav, learned counsel
for contesting respondent Nos.3 and 4 and
Shri Sharad Chandra Singh, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
village Patka Bogha, Pargana, Khairagarh,
District
Allahabad
came
under
consolidation
operation
by
way
of
notification issued under Section 4 of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953,
(hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act")
in the year 1971. According to petitioner
No.1 a patta was executed by Raja Sahab in
favour of petitioner No.1 in 1929 for
maintenance as petitioner No.1 was living
separately from her husband and petitioner
No.1 being disable to do cultivation sublet
the land to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In the
Basic Year of Consolidation Operation,
petitioners were recorded as Bhumidhar of
the plots of Khata No.3 situated in
aforementioned village as mentioned in
paragraph No.5 of the writ petition and
respondent No.3 was recorded in class-7 as
Asami. During consolidation partal, Plot
No. 110/3 and 240/2, one Deotadin claimed
to be in possession of the plot in dispute.
Plots of Khata No. 3/1 was recorded in the
name of respondent No.3-Sampat in Class7 as Asami. Plot of Khata No.1 as
mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the writ
petition was recorded in the name of
petitioner No.1, Rani Jai Ratan Kaur as
bhumidhar and respondent No.3-Sampat
was recorded in Class-7 as Asami. Plot of
Khata No.3 were also recorded in the name
of petitioner No.1-Rani Jai Ratan Kaur and
respondent No.3-Sampat was recorded in
Class-7 as asami. One plot No.73/3 area 3
biswa 10 biswansi of khata No.3 was
recorded in Class-9 category in the name of
respondent No.3-Sampat. Plots of Khata
No.8 were recorded in the name of Shri
Sant Bux Singh as Bhumidhar. The
disputed plots which were recorded in the
name of petitioner No.1-Rani Jai Ratan
Kaur was stated to be transferred later on in
favour of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Against
Basic Year Entry an objection under
Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by
respondent No.3/Sampat for expunging the
entry of class-7 and for recording his name
as sirdar. Respondent No.3 contested his
claim on the ground that he was recorded in
1356 fasli and 1359 fasli, as such, he
became Adhivasi and later on Sirdar. It was
also pleaded by opposite party No. 3 that
Petitioner No. 1, who is the wife of Raja
Bhagwati Prasad Singh, is not a disabled
person and the entry of Class-7 as Asami in
respect to respondent No. 3 is incorrect and
is liable to be expunged. On behalf of
petitioner No.1. the claim was set up that
petitioner No.1 is a disabled person in view
of adjudication took place by a competent
court, as such the judgment passed by
competent court declaring petitioner No.1
is a disabled person will operate as resjudicata between the parties. It was further
pleaded on behalf of petitioners that
petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 obtained a disputed
land by exchanged from petitioner No.1.
Consolidation Officer vide order dated
23.03.1972 rejected the objection filed by
contesting respondents and ordered to
record their name as Asami as well as the
name of Ramhit was ordered to be
expunged from Plot No. 73/3, area 3 biswa,
10 biswansi and the name of Deotadin was
also ordered to be expunged from Plot No.
110/3, area 2 biswa & Plot No. 240/2 area
10 biswa. Respondent Nos.3 and 4
challenged the order of Consolidation
Officer dated 23.03.1972 by way of four
appeals under Section 11 of U.P.C.H. Act
before Settlement Officer Consolidation
2348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which were registered as Appeal Nos.86 to
89. The aforementioned appeals were
consolidated and decided by common
judgment dated 03.07.1972 dismissing the
aforementioned appeals. Respondent Nos.3
and 4 filed four revisions under Section 48
of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of
Consolidation which were registered as
revision Nos. 47/3, 48/35, 49/36, and 50/37.
The
aforementioned
revisions
were
consolidated and heard together. The
Deputy Director of Consolidation by order
dated
07.07.1973
allowed
the
aforementioned revisions setting aside the
orders of Consolidation Officer and
Settlement Officer of Consolidation and
remanded
the
matter
back
before
Consolidation Officer for considering the
questions of estoppel etc. In pursuance of
the remand order passed by Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
dated
07.07.1973, the Consolidation Officer
heard the matter and rejected the objection
of respondent Nos.3 and 4 vide order dated
15.10.1974. In appeal filed under Section
11 of U.P.C.H. Act by respondent Nos. 3
and 4 against the order of Consolidation
Officer dated 15.10.1974 the Assistant
Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide
order dated 25.03.1975 allowed the appeal
setting aside the order of Consolidation
Officer dated 15.10.1974. Revision filed by
petitioners under Section 48 of U.P.C.H.
Act against the appellate order dated
25.3.1975 was dismissed by Deputy
Director of Consolidation vide order dated
9.8.1978. Hence this writ petition on behalf
of the petitioners challenging the order
dated 09.08.1978 passed by Deputy
Director of Consolidation and order dated
25.03.1975 passed by Settlement Officer of
Consolidation.

3. In respect to proceedings under
Section 240-G and 240-H of U.P.Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
(hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A.& L.R.
Act) brief facts of the case are that in Suit
No. 191 of 1957-58 under Section 240-G
and 240-H of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act an
objection was filed by petitioner No.1 on
the ground that in view of the provisions
contained
under
Section
157
of
U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act she should be declared
disabled and separated wife and the claim
of respondent Nos.3 and 4 for Adhivasi/
Sirdari rights is not tenable as respondent
Nos.3 and 4 are Asami and petitioner No.1
is Bhumidhar of plot in question. The
Compensation Officer framed issues and
referred the matter to the Court of SubDivisional Officer Meja, Allahabad who
was competent to decide the issue of title.
The Additional Sub-Divisional Officer vide
judgment dated 13.08.1958 decided the
matter in a judicial proceeding considering
the objection of respondent Nos.3 and 4
holding that the claim of respondent Nos.3
and 4 for Adhivasi/ Sirdari right is rejected
and the claim of petitioner No.1 is accepted.
One
suit
under
Section
202
of
U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act was also filed against
respondent Nos.3 and 4 which was abated
under Section 5 of U.P.C.H. Act.

4. This court on 06.11.1978
admitted the writ petition and issued notice
to respondent No.4.

5. In pursuance of the order dated
06.11.1978, parties have exchanged their
pleadings.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for
petitioners submitted that Deputy Director
of Consolidation as well as Settlement
Officer
Consolidation
has
committed
manifest error of law in holding that
adjudication took place under Section 240G of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act will not operate as
5 All. Smt. Rani Jai Ratan Kaur Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
2349
res-judicata
in
the
consolidation
proceeding. He further submitted that SubDivisional Officer Meja, Allahabad in suit
under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act
has held vide judgement dated 13.08.1958
that petitioner No.1 is disabled person and
the entry of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is
liable to be expunged. He further placed the
proceeding which took place before the
Compensation Officer under Section 240-G
of
U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act
in
order
to
demonstrate that proceeding has taken
place in proper manner by referring the
dispute to the competent authority, framing
issues, giving opportunity to the parties to
lead evidence in support of their case and
deciding the matter with respect to the title
of the parties, accordingly, the adjudication
took place under Section 240-H of
U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act will operate as resjudicata in the subsequent consolidation
proceeding in view of full Bench decision
of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1975
Allahabad 324 Awdhesh Singh and
another versus Bikarma Ahir and others.
He further submitted that even in the oral
evidence
before
the
Consolidation
Authorities petitioners' witness namely
Ram Kripal has not stated that Raja Sahab
is in possession over the land in dispute but
Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as
Deputy Director of Consolidation has
misread the oral evidence adduced by
petitioners' witnesses Ram Kripal. He
further submitted that petitioner No.1 was
held to be disabled person in view of the
provision contained under Section 157 of
U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, as such the same will
operate as res judicata in the consolidation
proceeding. He further submitted that after
adjudication of the claim under Section
240-H of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, no claim was
raised by respondent Nos.3 and No.4 till
1972 when the consolidation intervened in
the village in question. He further
submitted that impugned judgment passed
by Deputy Director of consolidation and
Settlement Officer of Consolidation are
wholly illegal as such, the same are liable
to
be
set
aside
and
judgment
of
Consolidation Officer be affirmed. He
placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1969
Supreme Court 1114 Sukhram Singh and
another Vs. Smt. Harbheji as well as
A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 94 Mirdad
and others Vs. Board of Revenue and
others in support of his argument.

7. On the other hand, learned
Senior Counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4
submitted that respondent nos.3 & 4 are in
possession over the land in dispute since
before 30 years from the date of filing of
objection under Section 9 of U.P.C.H. Act
that is before date of vesting, as such, they
became Sirdar of the land in dispute. He
further submitted that the petitioner no.1 is
not a disabled person and order passed in
the proceeding under Section 240-G of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act would not operate as
res-judicata
in
the
subsequent
title
proceeding under Section 9 of U.P.C.H.
Act. He next submitted that the dispute
under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act was decided by the Sub-Divisional
Officer as the Compensation Officer, as
such, the same will not come in the way of
Consolidation Courts to decide the title
dispute according to the evidence adduced
before the Consolidation Officer rather on
the basis of adjudication took place under
Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He
further submitted that the Deputy Director
of Consolidation while deciding the first
revision filed by respondent nos.3 & 4
against the earlier order of Settlement
Officer of Consolidation dated 3.7.1972 has
held that Additional Divisional Officer has
exercised his power as Compensation
2350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Officer and not as Judicial Officer as such
the same will not operate as res-judicata in
Consolidation
proceeding,
the
aforementioned
judgment
of
Deputy
Director of Consolidation dated 7.7.1973
has not been challenged by the petitioners
before any Court, as such, the finding
recorded under the earlier revisional
judgment
of
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation dated 7.7.1973 is binding on
the Courts as well as the parties. He next
submitted that in the year 1967 petitioners
have filed a suit for eviction of the
respondents from the land in dispute before
the revenue Court under Section 202 of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act but the same was
abated due to consolidation operation took
place in the village in question. He further
submitted that theory of separation setup by
the petitioner no.1 is for the purposes of the
case as age of Santbux Singh being 40 years
in the year 1973 indicate that he was born
after execution of patta in the year 1929. He
further submitted that there is no illegality
in the judgment passed by respondent nos.1
& 2, as such, no interference is required in
the matter and the writ petition filed by the
petitioners is liable to be dismissed. He
further placed reliance upon the judgement
passed by full Bench of this Court in the
case reported in 1967 RD 440 (Maqbool
Raza Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation,
U.P., Lucknow & others as well as the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported
in 1969 RD 165, Sukhram Singh vs. Smt.
Harbheji in order to demonstrate that the
Consolidation Officer are competent to
look into the question as to who is Adhivasi
& thereafter Sirdar in spite of the
adjudication took place under Section 240J of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further
submitted that in view of entry of 1356 fasli
& 1359 fasli, the right & title of the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot be
negatived in view of the law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in
A.I.R. 1965 Supreme Court 54 Amba
Prasad Vs. Mahaboob Ali Shah and
others as well as A.I.R. 1968 Supreme
Court 466 Smt.Sonawati and others vs.
Sri Ram and others.

8. I have considered the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.

9. There is no dispute about the fact
that the plot in dispute was recorded in the
name of the petitioner no.1 as bhumidhar
and the name of respondent no.3 was
recorded as Asami in the basic year of the
consolidation operation. There is also no
dispute about the fact that the objection
under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act filed
by respondent no.3 for recording his name
as Sirdar after expunging the entry of Class
7/ Asami in respect to the plot in question
has been rejected by the Consolidation
Officer directing that respondent no.3 shall
be recorded as Asami and not as Sirdar.
There is also no dispute about the fact that
in appeal filed by respondent nos.3 & 4, the
order of Consolidation Officer was set aside
and respondent nos.3 & 4 was ordered to be
recorded as Sirdar after expunging the entry
of Jaman-7 from revenue records. There is
also no dispute about the fact that the
revision filed by the petitioners has been
dismissed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation.

10. In order to appreciate the
controversy involved in the matter perusal
of Section 240-G & 240-H of Chapter IXA of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will be relevant
for perusal, which are as under:

Conferment of Sirdari rights on
Adhivasi
5 All. Smt. Rani Jai Ratan Kaur Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
2351
"240G. Filing of objections. - Any
person interested or the State Government
may in the manner prescribed file before
the Compensation Officer an objection
upon such statement within the period of
one month from the date of its publication.
240H. Disposal of Objections. - (1)
Except as provided in subordered to
record
the
name-section
(2),
the
Compensation Officer shall after hearing
the parties, if necessary, on the objections
filed under Section 240- G, dispose of the
objections in the manner prescribed.
(2) Where the objection filed
under sub-section (1)-
(a) is that the land is not land
referred to in sub-section (1) of Section
240-A the Compensation Officer shall
frame an issue to that effect and refer it for
disposal to the Court which would have
jurisdiction to decide a suit under Section
229-B read with Section 234-A in respect
of the land and thereupon all the
provisions relating to the hearing and
disposal of such suits shall apply to the
reference as if it were suit;
(b) involves a question of title and
such question has not already been
determined by a competent court, the
Compensation Officer shall, [except in
cases in which Section 240-HH applies]
refer the question for determination to the
[court
of
competent
jurisdiction].
Explanation. - Whether a person is or is
not an adhivasi shall not be deemed to
raise a question of title within the meaning
of this clause.
(3) [The court of competent
jurisdiction] shall determine the question
referred to him under Clause (b) of subsection (2) in the manner prescribed and
his decision thereon shall be final."
The Chapter IX of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act was inserted by U.P. Act No.20 of
1954.
11. In the instant matter order sheet of the
proceeding under
Section 240-G
of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which took place
between 12.2.1957 to 12.8.1957 will be
also relevant for perusal, which are as
under:

"नकि फिम एहकरर् ररनी जैरतन कुवर बनरर् आदित्य
प्रसरि वगैरह िफर 240जी० र्ौजर पटखर बरगेहर
फै० 13-8-58
12-2-57
आज र्ुकिर्र पेश हुआ पुकरर कररई गई। उज्रिरर हरदजर
हुआ ररर् करन वगैरह ने बयरन तहरीरी िरदखि दकयर करयमवरही
ररपोटम शरदर्ि दर्दसि की गई।
14-3-57
ह० चतुरिरि दसांह
र्ुकिर्र ब तर० 14-3-57 को पेश हो और यदि कोई
अदिवरसी हरदजर न हो तो र्ुकिर्र की करयमवरही परगनर िीश र्ेजर
के यहराँ िेज दियर जरवे।
14-3-57
आज र्ुकिर्र पेश हुआ पुकरर कररई उजुरिरर हरदजर
हुआ अदिवरसी गण हरदजर हुये।
र्ुकिर्र दनजरई है वरस्ते करयमवरही परगनर िीश र्ेजर
िेजर जरय और उजुरिरर व अदिवरसी गण व तर० 5-4-57 को
परगनरिीश के इजिरस हरदजर हों।
हर० चतुरिरि दसांह
5.4.57
5-4-57
आज र्ुकिर्र र्ौसूफ होकर पेश हुआ वकीि फरीक
खरिी र्ें 24 करश्त करररन हरदजर आये वरकी गैर हरदजर हैं। फरीक
अव्वि की तरफ से कोई िी हरदजर नहीं आयर। इस बुि हुकुर्
उजुरिररी अिर्खरररज 5-4-57के बरि 11-7-57,
25-7-57
22-8-57
वरस्ते सूबूत करगजी
Issues
(1) Whether the objections suffers
under disability provided under section 157
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
(2) Whether the order objections
we re Adhisasis and have become Sirdar of
the land, in dispute.
S.d. Illegible
S.D.O.
2352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
22-8-57"

12. The perusal of the relevant
portion of the order of Additional S.D.O.
Meja, Allahabad dated 13.8.1958 in Suit
No.191 of 1957-1958 under Section 240-G
of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are also relevant for
perusal, which is as under:

"In the Court of Addl. S.D.O.
Meja, Allahabad.
Suit NO.191 of 57-58 under
Section 240G.
Village-Patkha Bagna Pargana
Khairagarh,
Tahsil Meja, District- Allahabad.
Rani Jai Ratan Kunwar Vs. Aditya
Prasad
Decided on 13.5.1958
Copy of order
In the court of Shri Chauhal Singh
Additional S.D.O. Meja
Case No.191 of V. Patkha Bangna
Rani Jai Ratan Kunwar vs. Aditya Prasad
and Others
This
is
an
objection
..................................................
............Rani Sahiba's case therefore fully
covered under Sub-Section (a) of Section
157 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act under
separation. She is entitled to its benefit.
Issue no.I is therefore decided in the
affirmative.
Issue No.2:-
Since the applicant objector has
been adjudged to be entitled to the benefit
under Section 157 (a) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act the occupants of her lands is not
acquire Adhivasi rights but would be
Assamis under Section 21 (h) of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and the issue is decided
accordingly.
I, therefore, allow this objection
of Rani Jai Ratan Kunwar and order that
the names of opposite party be expunged
from Adhivasi now Sirdar Khatas and
they be entered as sub-tenants. Rani Jai
Ratan Kunwar would not be entitled to
any compensation.
..................................... would
be cancelled ......................may be
restored to
.....Rani
Jai
Ratan
Kunwar
according to the entry of 1362 F.
Sd/-Chauhal Singh Add. S.D.O.
Meja
13.8.1958

13. The ratio of law of full Bench
decision of this Court in the case of
Avdhesh Singh (Supra) will be also
relevant. Paragraph no.12 of the judgment
is as under:

"12. My answer to the first four
questions referred to us are as follows:--
(1) Finality of Compensation
Statement under Section 240-J, U. P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act extinguishes the rights and title of
the land-holder and the land-holder is
debarred from showing in collateral or
separate proceedings that the land is not
held by an Adhivasi, except in cases
where the provisions of the Act have not
been
followed
or
where
the
Compensation
Statement
has
been
prepared in disregard of the fundamental
principles of judicial procedure (Katikara
Chintamani
Dora
v.
G`uatreddi
Annamanaidu MANU/SC/0336/1973 :
[1974]2SCR655 . If the requirements of
the Act have not been complied with or the
fundamental
principles
of
judicial
procedure have been disregarded, the
Compensation Statement signed and
sealed by the Compensation Officer under
Section 240-J (2) of the Act can be assailed
in collateral proceedings.
5 All. Smt. Rani Jai Ratan Kaur Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
2353
(2) The Compensation Statement
signed and sealed under Section 240-J (2)
of the Act is final between the land-holder
and the State alone.
(3) The Compensation Statement
amounts to an adjudication of title
between the land-holder and the person
claiming Adhivasi rights and the principle
of res judicata and constructive res
judicata will apply only to an Adhivasi
who has been a party to proceedings
consequent on an objection of the nature
contemplated by Section 240-H (2) (a) of
the Act.
(4) The land-holder against whom
Compensation Statement has become
final and who has received compensation
has no locus standi to reagitate his rights
in respect of the land in question."

14. The perusal of Paragraph no.12
(3) of the judgment rendered in Awadhesh
Singh
(Supra)
as
quoted
above,
demonstrates
that
the
compensation
statement amounts to adjudication of title
between the land holder and the person
claiming Adhivasi right and principles of
res-judicata and constructive res-judicata
will apply only to Adhivasi who was party
to proceedings.

15. The perusal of order sheet of
case under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act as well as judgment passed by
the Additional S.D.O. dated 13.8.1958
passed in Suit No.191 of 1957-58 fully
demonstrate that issues were framed,
reference was made, objections were filed
by respondent nos.3 & 4 as well as
evidences were adduced by both parties
including revenue entry of 1356 fasli,
1359 fasli, 1363 fasli, accordingly,
Additional S.D.O. Meja, Allahabad has
held that respondent nos.3 & 4 are
entitled to be recorded as Asami & claim
for Sirdari right of respondent nos.3 & 4
was rejected.

16. On the basis of the order
dated 13.8.1958, which had attained
finality, the petitioner no.1 remained
recorded as bhumidhar even in the basic
year of the consolidation operation i.e.
1971.

17. In view of the paragraph
no.12 (3) of the full Bench decision of
this Court in the case of Awadesh Singh
(supra), the judgment dated 15.8.1958
passed under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act will operate as res-judicata in
the consolidation proceeding.

18. So far as the argument
advanced by learned Senior Counsel for
respondent nos.3 & 4 that in view of the
finding recorded by Deputy Director of
Consolidation while passing the earlier
remand
order
dated
7.7.1973
that
judgment dated 13.8.1958 passed under
Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act
will not operate as res-judicata in
consolidation
proceeding
cannot
be
accepted in view of ratio of law laid down
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
reported in JT 1996 (1) SC 471, Preetam
Singh (Dead) by Lrs & Others Vs.
Assistant Director of Consolidation &
Others. Paragraph nos.5 & 6 of the
judgment rendered in Preetam Singh
(supra) will be relevant for perusal, which
are as under:

"5. We have heard learned Counsel
for the appellants. We can safely say on the
strength of the two precedents of the Court
in
Jasraj
Inder
Singh
v.
Hemraj
Multanchand : [1977]2SCR973 and Smt.
Sukhrani (dead) by LRs. and Ors. v. Hari
Shankar and Ors. : [1979]3SCR671 that
2354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the appellant should succeed. In the former
case this Court expressed its view that "the
remand order by the High Court is a finding
at an intermediate stage of the same
litigation. The appeal before the Supreme
Court is from the suit as a whole and
therefore, the entire subject matter is
available for adjudication before it....
Otherwise the whole lis for the first time
came to the Supreme Court and the High
Court's finding at an intermediate stage
does not prevent examination of the
position of law by the Supreme Court.
Intermediate stages of the litigation and
orders passed at those stages have a
provisional
finality....
The
contention
barred before the High Court is still
available to be canvassed before this Court
when it seeks to pronounce finally on the
entirety of the suit...." In the later case this
Court expressed the view "that though a
decision given at an earlier stage of the suit
will bind the parties at a later stage of the
same suit, it is equally well settled that
because a matter has been decided at an
earlier stage by an interlocutory order and
no appeal has been taken there from or no
appeal did lie, a higher court is not
precluded from considering the matter
again at a later stage of the same
litigation."

6. When the matter was in revision
before
the
Assistant
Director
(Consolidation), he had the entire matter
before him and his jurisdiction was
unfettered. While in seisin of the matter in
his revisional jurisdiction, he was in
complete control and in position to test the
correctness of the order made by the
Settlement
Officer
(Consolidation)
effecting remand. In other words, in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction the
Assistant Director (Consolidation) could
examine the finding recorded by the
Settlement Officer as to the abandonment of
the land in dispute by those tenants who had
been recorded at the crucial time in the
Khasra of 1359 Fasli. That power as a
superior court the Assistant Director
(Consolidation) had, even if the remand
order of the Settlement Officer had not been
specifically put to challenge in separate
and
independent
proceedings.
It
is
noteworthy that the Court of the Assistant
Director (Consolidation) is a court of
revisional jurisdiction otherwise having
suo moto power to correct any order of the
subordinate officer. In this situation the
Assistant Director (Consolidation) should
not have felt fettered in doing complete
justice between the parties when the entire
matter was before him. The war of
legalistics fought in the High Court was of
no material benefit to the appellants. A
decision on merit covering the entire
controversy was due from the Assistant
Director (Consolidation)."

19. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation while passing the impugned
order has recorded finding that from the
record of the proceeding it is not
established that judgment dated 13.8.1958
under Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act was passed by competent authority
from the order sheet of the proceedings as
well as the judgment dated 13.8.1958
passed in Suit No.191 of 1957-58, under
Section 240-G of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,
which is quoted above in the earlier part of
this judgment fully demonstrates that each
& every requirement Section 240-H of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are fulfilled, as such,
impugned judgment passed by revisional
Court is wholly illegal. The appellate Court
has also passed the impugned judgment
contrary to the ratio of law laid down by full
Bench of this Court in Awadhesh Singh
(supra).
5 All. Murtja Vs.State of U.P. & Ors.
2355
20. The full Bench judgment of
this Court in the case of Maqbool Raza
(supra) & judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Sukh Ram (supra) cited by
learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
nos.3 & 4 will not apply in the instant
matter as there was proper compliance of
Section 240-H of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in
the instant matter and in the full Bench
decision of this Court in Awadhesh Singh
(supra) the full Bench decision of Maqbool
Raza (supra) was taken into consideration.

21. Considering the entire facts
and circumstances of the case, the
impugned
judgment
dated
25.3.1975
passed by respondent no.2/ Assistant
Settlement Officer of Consolidation &
judgment
dated
9.8.1978
passed
by
respondent no.1/ Deputy Director of
Consolidation are liable to be set aside and
the same are hereby set aside.

22. The writ petition stands
allowed and order of Consolidation Officer
dated 15.10.1974 is maintained by which
basic year entry was maintained.

23. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2355
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 9568 of 2024

Murtja ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pradeep Kumar Rai, Prajyot Rai
Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
C.S.C., Kaushal Kishore Mani

Civil Law - U.P.Z.A.LR Act-Sections 132,
194, 195 & 198-the plot in question is
recorded as 'Zohad' (pond) in the Revenue
Records-such category is covered u/s 132 of the
Act-no bhumidhari right can accrue-certain land
covered u/s 132 of the Act can be allotted as
Aasami by the land Management Committee as
per the Act-The committee has exercised power
u/s 195 in allotting the land to the vendor of the
Petitioner-lease granted to petitioner rightly
rejected-no right accrued to Petitioner by sale
deed-allotment in favour of vendor was Aasami
lease year to year-Petitioner being a transferee
from the original Aasami cannot acquire rights
over the land.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Jitendra Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., reported
in 2018(8) ADJ
503

2. Vakila Vs St. of U.P. & ors., reported in 2008(3)
ADJ 444

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State Respondents
and Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned
counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the
Respondent No. 4, Land Management
Committee.

2. The writ petition has been filed
questioning the legality, propriety and
correctness of the order dated 06.12.2023
passed by the Additional Commissioner
(Administration-II) Saharanpur Division,
Saharanpur in Case No. 629 of 2023, under
Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,
1950 as also the order dated 12.12.2023