Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1997) 04 SC CK 0077

Randhir Singh and others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 1 April 1997 · Citation: AIR 1997 SC 2563 : (1997) AIRSCW 2511 : (1997) 4 JT 641 : (1997) RD 346 : (1997) 3 SCALE 580 : (1997) 3 SCR 488 : (1997) 4 Supreme 346

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Ramaswamy, J · D. P. Wadhwa, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeals No''s. 1097 and 1098 of 1979

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 275 words

K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.—These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, made on 30.11.1977 in Special Appeal Nos. 1047 & 1048 of 1970.

2.

It is not necessary to dilate upon the three-tier history of the litigation. Suffice it to state that pursuant to the remand order made by the High Court in the last instance, the Deputy Director has gone into the question whether the Settlement Officer under the Consolidation Act has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Section 3(5) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act defines "land" to mean the land held or occupied for the purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry which includes pissiculture and poultry form and also the site, being part of a holding, of a house of other similar structures.

3.

In view of the above definition u/s 3(5) of the Consolidation Act, the buildings occupying the land and used for commercial purposes are not covered by the Act. Therefore, the High Court had left the dispute open for a decision by the appropriate Court.

4.

It is an admitted position that the appellants and the respondents are holding hats in those areas. Under the U.P. Land Reforms Act, 1950 the question whether such lands vest in the State on abolition of the estates etc. is also a matter left open since the State is not a party to these proceedings. It may be open to the appellants to have their right adjudicated as ordered by the High Court in an appropriate proceeding according to law.

5.

The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.