TMI Blog1972 (7) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded, he stilt had his co-tenancy rights intact because of his cultivatory possession. His objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer and his appeal against that was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. He then preferred a revision which was allowed by the Deputy Director. Consolidation and it was ordered that his name should also be recorded along with the names of the five appellants, as a co-tenant in the two Khatas. The appellants then filed Writ Petition No, 633 of 1965 which was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court, giving rise to this special appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the constitutionality of the Act on various grounds, of which the following have been urged before us:-- (1) Sections 4 and 6 of the Act give arbitrary powers to the State Government to accord discriminatory treatment to tenure-holders in different villages by placing some villages under consolidation while excluding others, thus offending Article 14 of the Constitution. (2) Sections 5, 7 and 8 of the Act provide a procedure for the correction and revision of Revenue records for villages under conso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation. Again, so long as the area remains under Consolidation operations, no tenure-holder, except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, previously obtained, shall either use his holding or any part thereof for purposes not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming, or transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange any part of his holding. Finally, every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area, or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under the Act, pending before any Court or authority, whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated. Such abatement shall be without prejudice to the rights of the persons affected to agitate the right or interest in dispute in the said suits or proceedings before the appropriate Consoli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has unfettered power to de-notify the operations under Section 6 in one district and not in another, or in one village in the same district but not in another. A different procedure has been prescribed under Sections 5, 7 and 8 for the revision of village maps, Field Books, Annual Registers etc. than is prescribed in the Land Revenue, Act. The power to use or transfer one's property has been restricted to a large extent. The jurisdiction of existing Civil and Revenue Courts even in pending matters has been taken away under Section 5 (2) as all such proceedings shall stand abated. A person will be forced to seek his remedy before a different set of Courts or authorities than a person whose holding does not fall within the area under operation. The upshot of the argument is that two different procedures, two different sets of Courts, and different rights of appeal and revision are prescribed under the Act and thus while some citizens will be governed by one set of rules, procedural and jurisdictional, another class of citizens will be governed by wholly different sets of Rules, which fact creates an insidious discrimination in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 (2) and 9-A of the Act. His contention is that Section 229-B (3), U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act lays down that in a suit by a person claiming to be a Bhumidhar or Sirdar, the State Government and Gaon Sabha shall be impleaded as parties. Section 9 (2) or Section 9-A, however, have not made a similar provision for the joinder of the State Government and Gaon Sabha as necessary parties to an objection. This change in the procedure, it is contended, is wholly unreasonable inasmuch as in the absence of the State Government and the Gaon Sabha as parties, no finality can attach to the adjudication of an objection. It was argued that the ownership of land vests in the State or the Gaon Sabha and it is necessary that in a suit by the rival tenure-holders, the supreme proprietors of the land are impleaded as necessary parties. It is true that what is mandatory under Section 229-B is not so under Section 9 (2) or Section 9-A. The Legislature, however, has plenary powers to enact a law within its legislative field and in doing so, to provide a procedure different from a procedure obtaining under any other statute. The change in procedure, therefore, will not invalidate the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se (g) of Section 2, U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 'Gaon Sabha' means a 'Gaon Sabha' established under Section 3. Under Section 3, the State Government has to establish a Gaon Sabha by notification in the Official Gazette. Under Section 4, every Gaon Sabha shall, by the name notified in the Official Gazette, be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall have power to acquire by purchase, gift, or otherwise, to hold, administer, and transfer property, both move-able and immovable, and to enter into any contract, and shall, by the said name, sue or be sued. A Gaon Sabha is thus a juristic person incorporated by statute. It is, to our mind, covered by the word 'person' occurring in Sections 9 (1) (a), and 9 (2). The word 'person' is also wide enough to include the State Government, unless such inclusion would be repugnant to the context in which the word is used in Section 9 (1) (a) or Section 9 (2). The context does not exclude the State Government. The result thus is that a Gaon Sabha or a State Government can file an objection. A tenure-holder or any other person can also implead, either or both as a party to the objection if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purport or operate to create, declare assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent of the value of ₹ 100/- and upwards to or in immovable property. shall be compulsorily registerable. Under Section 49. no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall affect any immovable property comprised therein or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property, unless it has been registered. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on four cases, namely Datto v. Baba Saheb; Ram Dular v. Rai Karan Pandey 1960 All WR (HC) 113; Ram Gati Chaubey v. Ram Adhar Chaubey: AIR1961All537 and Chandra Bhan Datt Ram Pandey v. Jagdish Datt, Ram Pandey 1962 All LJ 404 for the proposition that the compromise is not admissible in evidence on the question of proof of title. In Datto's case (Supra) the document created or purported to create a permanent tenancy and although it fell within the mischief of Section 17. Registration Act, it was not registered. The Bombay High Court held that Section 49 applied and the document could not affect the immovable property comprised the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in such a deed can or cannot be relied upon, is beyond the purview of that decision. In Ram Gati Chaube's case (Supra), the parties had entered into a compromise in a mutation case, on the basis of which some specific properties were given to the rival Parties as absolute owners and it was stipulated that they will have no title to or concern with the properties given to the other party. The S.D.O. passed a one word order 'approved', without incorporating the said terms in his order. The Full Bench formulated six questions but decided only the first two namely, whether the order of the mutation Court embodied the petition of compromise and whether the said compromise declared rights to immovable property worth more than ₹ 100/- and was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. The Full Bench held that had the S.D.O.'s order explicitly recorded the entire compromise, no problem would have been posed. However, the order could be deemed to embody only those provisions which specify the properties to be mutated and it could not be deemed to refer to and embody those provisions of the compromise which declared the parties to be the absolute own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of above. ₹ 100/-and required registration under Section 17(1)(b). Registration Act. The argument was sought to be met by the plea that though the document required registration the purpose for which it was being relied upon was a collateral purpose. The decision of the Division Bench was that upon the terms of the compromise, it was clearly a partition deed which declared, assigned, limited or extinguished the rights, title and interest of the parties in the properties dealt with in it. It was further held that the mutation Court was concerned only with the question of possession and not of title. It was also observed that the compromise decree was silent in respect of the stipulation about the collection of Tahbazari dues, and it cannot be said to have been incorporated in the order of the mutation Court and thus J could derive no advantage from the mutation order as it did not incorporate that term. J had to fall back upon the compromise application. It was observed that the eight to manage a market and the right to realize Tahbazari dues are immovable property and the compromise petition required registration. The Division Bench finally observed that the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as creating, declaring assigning limiting or extinguishing, any right, title or interest in immovable property. Such a recognition may be oral or by a document, and if in a document, it would not require registration. Hiren Bibi v. Sohan Bibi: AIR 1914 PC 44; Devi Dayal v. Wazir Chand 61 Ind Cas 328 (Lah) and Sailesh Chandra Sarkar v. Bireshwar Chatterjee AIR1930Cal559 have taken the view that an unregistered document can be relied upon in proof of admission of title. In Hiren Bibi's case, the Privy Council observed that such a compromise can in no sense of the word be an alienation of property but a family settlement in which each party takes a share of the family property by virtue of the independent title which is, to that extent, and by way of compromise, admitted by the other parties. In Devi Daval's case (Supra) there was a rent deed which stated that one particular property was owned by the members of the family in equal shares end in another particular property one of the executants had a 3/4th share while the rest had a 1/4th share. It was urged that the lease, being for a period of more than one year and not being registered, was not admissible in evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as no necessity to have the compromise registered, as it did not create, assign, limit, extinguish or declare any title. It contained merely recital of fact by which the Court was informed that, the parties had come to an arrangement. To sum up, therefore, we are of the view that the compromise could have been relied upon as an admission of antecedent title. 11. The next contention of the learned counsel is that there was practically no evidence on the basis of which the finding with regard to title could have been given. This contention does not appear to be well founded. The appellants had examined Shyam Sunder. Putti Lal and Dwarka whereas the respondent had examined himself and one Raghunath. The learned Deputy Director was entitled to believe one set of witnesses and not the other. This Court cannot undertake a reappraisement of the same evidence. The finding of the learned Deputy Director-was criticized on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the original tenant was Bhikham, the common ancestor of the parties. The learned Deputy Director perhaps referred to Shyam Sunder's admission about it in his evidence. Annexure A, It is also argued that assumin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
