# SUGANCHAND v. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, DEHRADUN/ SAHARANPUR, U.P. AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1994] Supp. 6 S.C.R. 290
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1994-12-02
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy Anon. Venkatachala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/suganchand-v-the-dy-director-of-consolidation-dehradun-saharanpur-u-p-and-ors-12560
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953: Section 5-Notification of
consolidation-Effect on findings recorded in earlier suit-Held: the
findings recorded in earlier suit are not wiped out-Consolidation
authorities should rely upon the findings recorded by Civil Court unless
contrary evidence is produced
In a suit filed under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
Act, 1951 the Trial Court and the first Appelate Court recorded a
finding as to possession in favour of the appellant. During the pendency
of second appeal a notification regarding consolidation was published
under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as a result of which
the second appeal stood abated. However, in its proceedings the
Consolidation Officer found the findings of the appellant's possession
against him but on appeal the appellate authority held against the
respondent and in favour of the appellant. In the revision filed· by the
respondent, the Commissioner without adverting to the findings
recorded by the Civil Court held that the appellant has not proved his
possession • The order of the Commissioner was affirmed by the High
Court against which an appeal was filed in this Court.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD: In view of the law laid down by this Court in Ram Prasad
(dead) by Lrs. and Ors. v. Assistant Director of Consolidation and Ors., and
in the absence of any consideration of the effect of the findings
recorded by the civil courts, the order of the Commissioner is ex facie
G
illegal. It is accordingly set aside. The Commissioner is directed to go
into the evidence vis-a-vis the evidence and the findings recorded in the
civil suit and the appeals and to record his own findings and decide the
matter according to law. [293 C)
Ram Prasad (dead) by Lrs and Ors. v. Assistant Director of
H
Consolidation and Ors., [1994] Suppl. 2 S.C.C. 228, relied on.
290
SUGAN CHAND v. DY.DIR. OF CONSOLIDATION
291
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICION: Civil Appeal No 9643of1994.
A
From the Judgement and Order dated 16-3-1994 of the Allahabad High
CoUrt in C. Misc. W. P. No. 2372of1994.
D. K. Garg for th~ Appellant
B
V. N. Ganpule, R. C. Gubrele, Ms. Punam Kumari and Ashok Kr.
Singh for the Respondents.
The following order of the Court was delivered:
Substitution allowed.
c
Leave granted.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The inter se claim is for Plot
Nos. 23, 67 and 78 in village Halwana Ahathal, In the suit filed by the
appellant in the Court of S.D.O., Saharanpur, suit No. 1/ 1971-72 under
Section 229-B ofU. P. Zamindari Abolition Act (Act 1 of 1951), the trial D
Court recorded the finding in favour of the appellant thus :
"Issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and. 4 are interconnected and may be
taken up simultaneously. Issue No.5 relates to Smt. Nicho.
Her heirship is not very relevant to these proceedings as E
_ ~laim of defendant Shugan Chand is that he has acquired
rights on the land in suit by operation oflaw, even if his
possession was adverse. I find that plot nos.67 and 78 of the
land in suit are entered-as Sirdari of defendant Shugan Chand
alone since before the abolition of Zamindari, names of
plaintiffs or their ancestors do not find place on these plots. F
The possession of plaintiffs is also not entered anywhere on
these numbers. Defendant Shugan Chand therefore rightly
entered as sole sirdar over these plots and the plaintiffs have
no concern over it."
In Appeal No. 274/1972, the Additional Commissioner held thus:
G
"I am therefore of opinion that Shugan has been rightly held
to be sole sirdars of thes~ plots, by the learned lower court.
As regards the remaining plots namely Plot No.16/2, 70, 71,
15, 76 are concerned these plots are recorded in the name of
Jabal Singh, Harendra, Smt. Nichho as bhumidhars. In the H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1994] SUPP.·.6 S.C.R
Khatauni of 1362 F by order of the S.D.O. dated 20.11.54 the
name of Shugan Chand together with Jabal Singh and
Harendra has been ordered to recorded as contenure and
holder,

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
SUGANCHAND
v.
THE DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, DEHRADUN/
SAHARANPUR, U.P. AND ORS.
DECEMBER 2, 1994
[K. RAMASWAMY ANON. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953: Section 5-Notification of
consolidation-Effect on findings recorded in earlier suit-Held: the
findings recorded in earlier suit are not wiped out-Consolidation
authorities should rely upon the findings recorded by Civil Court unless
contrary evidence is produced
In a suit filed under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
Act, 1951 the Trial Court and the first Appelate Court recorded a
finding as to possession in favour of the appellant. During the pendency
of second appeal a notification regarding consolidation was published
under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as a result of which
the second appeal stood abated. However, in its proceedings the
Consolidation Officer found the findings of the appellant's possession
against him but on appeal the appellate authority held against the
respondent and in favour of the appellant. In the revision filed· by the
respondent, the Commissioner without adverting to the findings
recorded by the Civil Court held that the appellant has not proved his
possession • The order of the Commissioner was affirmed by the High
Court against which an appeal was filed in this Court.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD: In view of the law laid down by this Court in Ram Prasad
(dead) by Lrs. and Ors. v. Assistant Director of Consolidation and Ors., and
in the absence of any consideration of the effect of the findings
recorded by the civil courts, the order of the Commissioner is ex facie
G
illegal. It is accordingly set aside. The Commissioner is directed to go
into the evidence vis-a-vis the evidence and the findings recorded in the
civil suit and the appeals and to record his own findings and decide the
matter according to law. [293 C)
Ram Prasad (dead) by Lrs and Ors. v. Assistant Director of
H
Consolidation and Ors., [1994] Suppl. 2 S.C.C. 228, relied on.
290
SUGAN CHAND v. DY.DIR. OF CONSOLIDATION
291
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICION: Civil Appeal No 9643of1994.
A
From the Judgement and Order dated 16-3-1994 of the Allahabad High
CoUrt in C. Misc. W. P. No. 2372of1994.
D. K. Garg for th~ Appellant
B
V. N. Ganpule, R. C. Gubrele, Ms. Punam Kumari and Ashok Kr.
Singh for the Respondents.
The following order of the Court was delivered:
Substitution allowed.
c
Leave granted.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The inter se claim is for Plot
Nos. 23, 67 and 78 in village Halwana Ahathal, In the suit filed by the
appellant in the Court of S.D.O., Saharanpur, suit No. 1/ 1971-72 under
Section 229-B ofU. P. Zamindari Abolition Act (Act 1 of 1951), the trial D
Court recorded the finding in favour of the appellant thus :
"Issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and. 4 are interconnected and may be
taken up simultaneously. Issue No.5 relates to Smt. Nicho.
Her heirship is not very relevant to these proceedings as E
_ ~laim of defendant Shugan Chand is that he has acquired
rights on the land in suit by operation oflaw, even if his
possession was adverse. I find that plot nos.67 and 78 of the
land in suit are entered-as Sirdari of defendant Shugan Chand
alone since before the abolition of Zamindari, names of
plaintiffs or their ancestors do not find place on these plots. F
The possession of plaintiffs is also not entered anywhere on
these numbers. Defendant Shugan Chand therefore rightly
entered as sole sirdar over these plots and the plaintiffs have
no concern over it."
In Appeal No. 274/1972, the Additional Commissioner held thus:
G
"I am therefore of opinion that Shugan has been rightly held
to be sole sirdars of thes~ plots, by the learned lower court.
As regards the remaining plots namely Plot No.16/2, 70, 71,
15, 76 are concerned these plots are recorded in the name of
Jabal Singh, Harendra, Smt. Nichho as bhumidhars. In the H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1994] SUPP.·.6 S.C.R
Khatauni of 1362 F by order of the S.D.O. dated 20.11.54 the
name of Shugan Chand together with Jabal Singh and
Harendra has been ordered to recorded as contenure and
holder, samidar entries exists in subsequent khasras and
khataunies. The main contention of the learned counsel of the
appellant is that these entries are wrong as Shugan was not
the heir of Smt. Nichho, as his father Atar Singh had
predeceased Smt. Nichho and therefore, Shugan could not be
the contenure holder in the land in dispute. It is not seriously
disputed that Shugan could not inherit from Smt. Nichho as
his father Atar Singh had predeceased Smt. Nichho. By order
of S.D.O. dated 20-11-54 his name along with Jabal Singh
was recorded as contenure holder. It appears that no
objection was filed by Jabal Singh at that time and therefore
Shugan continued to be in the possession of the land in suit
as the cotenure holder. The defdt. has filed C.H.F. 9-Kh for
this will (Paper No 34A) wherein he has been recorded as
cotenure holder over the other land of Smt. Nichho.
It is, therefore, evident that Shugan has continued in
possession over the land in suit in his own rights in the
knowledge of the pltff/appellant. The present suit appears to
have been filed. by the pltffs. When they come to know that
according to law Shugan could not be heir of Smt. Nichho as
held in 1970 RD at page 2 Ram Nath vs. Smt. Raj Kumar."
While Second appeal filed by the respondent was pending, notification
under Section 5 of the U. P. Consolidation Act was published. As a
consequence the second appeal stood abated. In the proceeding initiated
before the Ct>nsolidation Authority, initially the Consolidation Officer
found the findings of the appellant's possession against him, but on appeal
the appellate authority reversed and held against the respondent and in
favour of the appellant. In the revision filed by the respondent, the
Commissioner without adverting to the findings recorded by the Civil Court
held that the appellant has not proved his possession. Consequently allowed
the revision in the impugned order dt. January 7, 1994 which was affirmed
in the writ petition filed by the appellant in W.P. No. 2372/1994 dated
March 16, 1994. Thus this ap~eal by special leave.
The controversy as to the effect of the issue of notification under
section 5 and s.s 3 thereof and the findings recorded in the earlier suit was
considered by this Court in Ram Prasad (dead) by Lrs. and Ors vs.
SUGAN CHAND v. QY. DIR. OF CONSOLIDATION
293
Assistant Director of ConsolidatiQn and Ors., [1994] Suppl 2 SCC 228. In A
paragraph 8 it was held that though the suit stood abated, yet the evidence
recorded in the suit or appeal and the finding recorded by Civil Courts do
not get; wiped out; are entitled to be considered and that, therefore, it being
the relevant evidence the authorities under the Consolidation Act, unless
contrary evidence is produced, .are entitled to rely upon the findings
recorded by the civil courts in support of its conclusions.
B
In view of the law laid down by this Court and in the absenc~ of any
consideration of the effect of the fmdings recorded by the civil courts, the
order of the Commissioner is exfacie illegal. It is accordingly set aside. The
Commissioner is directed to go into the evidence vis-a vis the evidence and
the fmdings recorded in the civil suit and the appeals and to record his own C
fmdings and decide the matter according to law.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No Costs ..
T.N.A.
Appeal allowed.