CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Shailendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 29 July 2011 · Citation: (2012) 2 AWC 2175

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 — Section 11A, 12, 49, 52, 9 · Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 229B
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 26771 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 350 words

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Kripa Shanker Singh learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit u/s 229B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, 1950, claiming tenancy rights over the land in dispute which during consolidation operations was indicated in survey Form No. 2A as ''khalihan''. It was accordingly kept outside consolidation operations.

2.

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

3.

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 u/s 229B was not barred.

4.

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 u/s 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, through an objection u/s 9A (2) of the U. P. C.H. Act.

5.

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 u/s 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Thus, the bar of Section, 11A, 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.