UP Consolidation of Holdings Act | Consolidation Officer Can't Take Away Ownership Of Tenure Holder And Grant It To Another : Supreme Court

In a recent decision concerning the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the Supreme Court held that the Consolidation Officer is not vested with the power to take away the vested title of a tenure holder and grant ownership to some other person in the property.

Affirming the decision of the High Court, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and P.S. Narasimha underscored the duty of the Consolidation Officer under the 1953 Act by stating that the duty of a Consolidation Officer under Section 49 of the 1953 Act is to prevent fragmentation and consolidate the different parcels of land of a tenure holder and not to take away the vested title of a tenure holder as no such power is conferred upon a Consolidation Officer to take away the vested title of a tenure holder.

“Conversely, the power under Section 49 of the 1953 Act cannot be exercised to take away the vested title of a tenure holder. No such jurisdiction is conferred upon a Consolidation Officer or any other Authority under the 1953 Act.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant said.

Section 49 of the 1953 Act contemplates a bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil or Revenue Court for the grant of declaration or adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land lying in an area for which consolidation proceedings have commenced.

“Section 49 of the 1953 Act is a provision of transitory suspension of jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Court only during the period when consolidation proceedings are pending. Notably, such suspension of jurisdiction of these Courts through the non-obstante provision is only with respect to the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders. In other words, unless a person is a pre-existing tenure holder, Section 49 does not come into operation.”, the court clarified.

The court noted that the provisions of the 1953 Act cannot be construed as a bar upon the Civil Courts to determine the ownership rights of the tenure holders because the jurisdiction to determine the ownership over the immoveable property could only be exercised by the civil courts and not the Consolidation Officer.

“The power to declare the ownership in an immovable property can be exercised only by a Civil Court save and except when such jurisdiction is barred expressly or by implication under a law. Section 49 of the 1953 Act does not and cannot be construed as a bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine the ownership rights.”, the court held.

In the instant case, the respondent/plaintiff had acquired the ancestral rights as a tenure holder. He was co-owner of the suit land much before the consolidation proceedings commenced. Meanwhile, when the whereabouts of the plaintiff were not known, the Consolidation Officer took away the plaintiff's ownership/title rights in the suit property and vested the ownership right with the appellant/defendant.

“As analyzed above, the provision does not enable the Consolidation Officer to grant ownership to Ramji Lal (appellant/defendant) in respect of a property, which, before the consolidation proceedings, never vested in him. Vice versa, the Consolidation Officer could not take away the ownership rights of Kalyan Singh (respondent/plaintiff) which he had already inherited much before the commencement of the consolidation proceedings.”, the court observed.

Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, A Suit For Declaration Of Possessory Rights Over Property is Not Required When a Person Becomes a Co-Owner Of the Property

The Appellant contended that to claim the possession over the suit property, the respondent/plaintiff would have obtained a decree of possession qua his share in the suit land as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1934.

Rejecting such contention, the Court observed that once the respondent/plaintiff is held to be co-owner in the subject property, the exclusive possession of the land, if any, with the appellant/defendant, was joint and it was for and on behalf of all the co-owners.

“Kalyan Singh (respondent/plaintiff) was already deemed to be in joint possession of the subject land in the eyes of law, hence he was not required to seek a decree of possession qua his share in the suit land.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merits.

Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sushant Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ajay Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Lomes, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Anurag Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhroov Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Tandan, Adv. Ms. Swapnil Singh, Adv. Ms. Radha Rajput, Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, AOR Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Ms. Abha Jain, AOR Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Mohan, Adv. Mr. A. P. Mohanty, AOR Mr. Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR Mr. Mohith Sivakumar, Adv. Mr. Dushyant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv. Mr. Ankur Prakash, AOR Mohd. Saquib Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Amod Kumar Bidhuri, Adv. Ms. Srishti Kasana, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. Yudhister Bharadwaj,Adv. Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Adv.

Case Title: PRASHANT SINGH & ORS. ETC. VERSUS MEENA & ORS. ETC.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Click here to read/download the judgment