Skip to content


Sadhan Lal Suraj Prasad Vs. Deputy Director, Consolidation and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 721 of 1963
Judge
Reported inAIR1964All424
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226; Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections 4(8) and 34(5)
AppellantSadhan Lal Suraj Prasad
RespondentDeputy Director, Consolidation and ors.
Appellant AdvocateR.N. Shukla and ;B.L. Shukla, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateUma Shanker Srivastava, Standing Counsel, for Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
civil - raising objection - article 226 of the constitution of india and sections 4 (8) and 34 (5) of u.p. land revenue act, 1901 - no objection was raised in lower court - held, high court will not entertain objection for the first time in the writ petition - consolidation courts are not revenue court. - .....in consolidation courts in respect of their claimbecause of section 34 (5) of the u. p. land revenue act. section 34 (5) of the u. p. land revenue act states :'no revenue court shall entertain a suit or application by the person so succeeding or otherwise obtaining possession until such person has made the report required by this section.'it is conceded before me that this point was not urged as a ground of attack in the consolidation courts. under the circumstances i am not inclined to entertain it for the first time in writ proceedings.2. on merits also i am of opinion that the argument has not much force. in the present case the parties agitated their claims before the consolidation officer, the assistant settlement officer (consolidation) and the deputy director of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

N.U. Beg, J.

1. The sole point urged before me in this writ petition is that the opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 did not make an application for mutation after the death of Srimati Sheo Devi to be recorded in the revenue papers as heirs of Shambhu Dayal. They are therefore, debarred from making any application in Consolidation Courts in respect of their claimbecause of Section 34 (5) of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. Section 34 (5) of the U. P. Land Revenue Act states :

'No Revenue Court shall entertain a suit or application by the person so succeeding or otherwise obtaining possession until such person has made the report required by this section.'

It is conceded before me that this point was not urged as a ground of attack in the consolidation courts. Under the circumstances I am not inclined to entertain it for the first time in writ proceedings.

2. On merits also I am of opinion that the argument has not much force. In the present case the parties agitated their claims before the Consolidation Officer, the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, U. P., Lucknow. These Courts cannot be described as revenue Courts. The expression 'Revenue Court' is defined in Section 4 (8) of the Act as meaning

'all or any of the following authorities (that is to say), the Board and all members thereof, Commissioners, Additional Commissioners, Collectors, Additional Collectors, Assistant Collectors, Settlement Officers, Assistant Settlement Officers) Record Officers and Assistant Record Officers and Tahsildars'.

The consolidation Courts are constituted under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and they cannot be described as revenue Courts within the meaning of the definition of the said expression in Section 4 (8) of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Section 34 (5) of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, did not, therefore, debar the opposite parties from setting up their claim before the consolidation Courts.

3. I therefore, do not see any substance in this writ petition and dismiss it summarily.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //