Shailendra Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 3293 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26771 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Shailendra Pratap Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Kripa Shanker Singh
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,D.D. Chauhan
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Heard Sri Kripa Shanker Singh learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, claiming tenancy rights over the land in dispute which during consolidation operations was indicated in survey Form No. 2-A as 'Khalihan'. It was accordingly kept outside consolidation operations.

The suit has been filed after closure of consolidation operations and de-notification of the village under Section 52. The same has been dismissed on the ground of a bar operating under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

Learned counsel contends that since the nature of the land in dispute was such that it could not be a subject matter of adjudication by the consolidation authorities and even otherwise was placed outside consolidation operations, therefore, the suit under Section 229-B was not barred. 

The aforesaid submissions cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, a claim of a tenure holder of any alleged rights has to be adjudicated if pleaded after notification under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, through an objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act.

The petitioner admittedly did not set up his claim or his rights over the land in dispute by filing an objection under the aforesaid provision. Not only this, no application was moved under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act. Thus, the bar of Section 11-A, came into operation, and after the closure of the consolidation operations, a suit would otherwise be barred in view of the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act. Mere placing the land outside consolidation operations does not mean that a person who has a right, claiming title over the land, is debarred from filing an objection.

The petitioner having failed to avail of that opportunity, the bar of Section 49 clearly operates against him. In this view of the matter, the findings so recorded by the courts below cannot be said to be either perverse or bereft of any logical reasoning.

The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 29.7.2011

Sahu