Case Title – Prashant Singh & Ors. Etc. Vs. Meena & Ors. Etc. 2024 INSC 380
Case Number – Civil Appeal No. 8971/2014 & Contempt Petition (C) No. 86/2024 In Civil Appeal Nos. 8743-8744/2014
Dated on – 25th April, 2024
Quorum – Justice Surya Kant
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case of Prashant Singh & Ors. Etc. Vs. Meena & Ors. Etc. 2024 INSC 380, whirls around a dispute over the ownership rights regarding the specific land parcels in the Revenue Estate of Village of Mustafabad, District Haridwar, Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand). The land in dispute originally belonged to Angat, who had three sons namely Ramji Lal, Khushi Ram, and Pyara. Upon the death of Pyara without any issue, his share was equally divided between his two brothers. Kalyan Singh, the son of Khushi Ram, inherited the share of his father and was recognized as a co-owner of the said land, as evident in the entries in the revenue record. The proceedings of Consolidation were initiated in the village in the late 1950s or early 1960s under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,1953. In the course of these proceedings, Ramji Lal, the uncle of Kalyan Singh, sought to remove the name of Kalyan Singh from the record of ownership, claiming his whereabouts were unknown. The Consolidation Officer, on the basis of the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, annihilated the name of Kalyan Singh from the record and declared him Civilly dead, effectively transferring the ownership to Ramji Lal. Kalyan Singh, in the year 1985, instituted a suit contending his half-share in the property, which initially was decreed in his favour but later partly overturned by the Board of Revenue. The case went through various appeals and petitions, leading to the current legal proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme court of India.
ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the Consolidation Officer annihilating the name of Kalyan Singh from the record of ownership and declaring him civilly dead is valid?
Whether the subsequent legal actions initiated by Kalyan Singh were barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953?
Whether being an owner, Kalyan Singh, needed to seek a decree of possession in his declaratory suit?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 3(11) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 prescribes the Definition of a Tenure-Holder as a Bhumidhar with transferable or non-transferable rights, asami, government lessee, or grantee.
Section 9(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 prescribes that a Consolidation Officer must report to the Collector on whether to draw up a plan.
Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 envisages 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 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 prescribes the Discretion of the court for declaration of status or right
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the order of the Consolidation Officer, passed under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, deprived Kalyan Singh of his ownership rights and relinquished subsequent legal actions unavailing.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by intervening with the order of the Board detaining the case for further consideration.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the possession of the land by Kalyan Singh, even if not exclusive, should be deemed as possession on behalf of all co-owners, averting the need for a separate decree of possession.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the order of the Consolidation Officer was void as it exceeded the jurisdiction of the officer and infringed upon the ancestral rights of Kalyan Singh.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, did not apply to Kalyan Singh, who was already a co-owner of the land before the initiation of the proceedings of the consolidation.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the suit for declaration instituted by Kalyan Singh was justified and not barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Prashant Singh & Ors. Etc. Vs. Meena & Ors. Etc. 2024 INSC 380, held that the order of the Consolidation officer annihilating the name of Kalyan Singh was null and void as it exceeded the jurisdiction of the Officer and infringed upon the ancestral rights of Kalyan Singh. The court clarified that the Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, only suspends the jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Courts during the proceedings of consolidation and does not empower the officer to divest a tenure holder of vested rights. The court in this present case, dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the contentions of the Appellant, upholding the right of Kalyan Singh as a co-owner. The court, concerning the contempt petition, declined to entertain the same, as the appeals had been decided on the merits and the legal heirs of Kalyan Sigh could seek further remedies.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana
