Devi Singh @ Baldev Singh and others vs District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar and others

Hon''ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Ms. Jyoti Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.C. Arya, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3/1 to 3/4.

The plaintiffs opposite parties filed a suit praying that she is the owner of the land in question and that the defendants are in illegal possession. The defendants resisted the suit contending that they purchased the land in question in the year 1972 on the basis of an unregistered agreement and, since then, are in lawful possession. During the pendency of the suit, consolidation operation came into existence in the village and a certificate dated 18.12.2001 was issued by the Consolidation Officer indicating that the area in question has come into consolidation proceedings. This fact is admitted by the plaintiffs.

In the light of the aforesaid, an issue was framed as to whether the suit abates in view of Section 49 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as �Consolidation Act�) or not. The trial court held that the suit survives and that the suit would not abate u/s 49 of the Consolidation Act. The petitioners, being aggrieved, filed a revision, which was dismissed and consequently, the present writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the Court finds that the petitioners, who are the defendants, are claiming title over the land in question on the basis of a unregistered agreement executed between the parties in the year 1972 and, on that basis, are also claiming possession over the land in question. On the other hand, the plaintiffs are denying the title of the defendants over the land in question and contended that they are still Bhumidari over the land in question. In the opinion of the Court, the suit is not a simpliciter suit for injunction, but the title of the parties over the land in question is involved and once the title over the land in question arises, the same can be effectively decided in consolidation proceedings. Consequently, in the opinion of the Court and in view of Section 5 of the Consolidation Act, the suit should abate.

In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. In view of Section 5 of the Consolidation Act, the suit of the plaintiffs opposite parties abates.

Certified copy of this order shall be sent by the Registry to the court below within two weeks from today for necessary information and action.