UP Consolidation of Holdings Act | S.49 Doesn't Bar Jurisdiction Of Civil Courts To Determine Ownership Rights : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the power to declare the ownership in an immovable property can be exercised only by a Civil Court unless barred under a law, and that the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 does not contain such a bar

The Court has clarified that the power under Section 49 of the 1953 Act cannot be exercised to take away the vested title of a tenure holder, or to grant ownership in a property to one in whom it never vested

Factual Background

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and P. S. Narasimha was pronouncing its judgment on a batch of appeals where the controversy revolves around the ownership rights over a piece of land in a village in Uttarakhand, being an ancestral property originally owned by one Angat, who died leaving behind three sons, namely, Ramji Lal, Khushi Ram and Pyara. After Khushi Ram passed away, his son Kalyan Singh became a co-sharer/co-owner

The facts, as recorded in the judgment, are- Once the consolidation proceedings were initiated in the concerned village, the Consolidation Officer, on being approached by Ramji Lal, passed an order dated 08.05.1960 on the basis of a report claiming that Kalyan Singh had not been heard for last 8 of 10 years, did not arrive in the village and an affidavit to this effect was filed by his uncle Ramji Lal. Since all efforts to secure service on Kalyan Singh failed, the Consolidation Officer expunged the name of Kalyan Singh from the record and declared his civil death. On this premise, Ramji Lal started claiming to be the sole owner of the entire land holding of Angat.

The suit filed by Kalyan Singh for the declaration of his half share in the suit property was decreed in his favour and Ramji Lal's appeal against it was dismissed. In Ramji Lal's second appeal before the Board of Revenue, the suit was remanded with a direction to adjudicate the dispute afresh after forming an issue with respect to applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Kalyan Singh challenged the aforesaid order before the High Court and his writ petition was allowed by the High Court in its 2013 judgment which was impugned before the Supreme Court in the present appeals

Consideration by the Supreme Court

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Narasimha observes that Section 49 of the 1953 Act contemplates 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. The bench notes that 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”, states the bench

Continuing, the bench remarks that the object of the 1953 Act is to prevent fragmentation of the land holdings and consolidate them in such a fair and equitable manner that each tenure holder gets nearly equivalent land rights in the same revenue estate, and 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.

“Such a power can be exercised only in respect of those persons who are already the tenure holders of the land. 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”, emphasises the bench

The bench proceeds to assert that “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” and that “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 bench notes that Kalyan Singh had acquired ancestral rights as a tenure holder, that he was co-owner in the suit land much before the consolidation proceedings commenced. “Hence, the only declaration and adjudication of rights of Ramji Lal or Kalyan Singh that a Consolidation Officer could undertake under Section 49 of the 1953 Act was to avoid the fragmentation of their respective land holdings and consolidate or redistribute the parcels of land among them”, remarks the bench

The bench adds that section 49 does not enable the Consolidation Officer to grant ownership to Ramji Lal in respect of a property, which, before the consolidation proceedings, never vested in him. Further, the bench clarifies that vice versa, the Consolidation Officer could not take away the ownership rights of Kalyan Singh which he had already inherited much before the commencement of the consolidation proceedings.

“That being so, the order dated 08.05.1960 passed by the Consolidation Officer has rightly been held to be null and void and without any jurisdiction. It was passed usurping a power fraudulently, which never ever vested in a Consolidation Officer. The said order is thus liable to be ignored for all intents and purposes…All that is required to be held is that the order dated 08.05.1960 had no binding force or any adverse effect on the rights of Kalyan Singh”, declares the bench, dismissing the appeals

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

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Click here to read the judgment