1972 (7) TMI 109 - HC - Indian Laws

Dismissed appeal upholds constitutionality of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. No Article 14 violation. Costs awarded.

Shyam Sunder and Ors. Versus Siya Ram and Ors.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the constitutionality of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the findings of the Deputy Director ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.2. Arbitrary powers of the State Government under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.3. Discrimination in procedures under Sections 5, 7, and 8 of the Act.4. Arbitrary powers of Consolidation authorities under Sections 5, 9, 9-A, and 49 of the Act.5. Unreasonableness of Sections 9(2) and 9-A of the Act.6. Admissibility of unregistered compromise in evidence.7. Sufficiency of evidence supporting the Deputy Director's finding on title.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act:The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on various grounds, alleging it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court upheld the Act, emphasizing that the Legislature has the authority to create new courts or tribunals and to provide different procedures for case disposal. Article 14 forbids class legislation but allows reasonable classification. The classification under the Act was deemed reasonable as it was based on intelligible differentia and had a rational relation to the objective of consolidating agricultural holdings.2. Arbitrary Powers of the State Government under Sections 4 and 6:The appellants argued that Sections 4 and 6 conferred arbitrary powers on the State Government, allowing it to discriminate between different districts and villages. The court found that the Legislature's classification was based on intelligible differentia and had a rational relation to the objective of consolidation. The restriction on the use and transfer of property was deemed reasonable, aimed at developing agriculture and avoiding complications in the allotment of compact Chaks.3. Discrimination in Procedures under Sections 5, 7, and 8:The appellants contended that different procedures for revising village maps, Field Books, and Annual Registers under Sections 5, 7, and 8 created discrimination. The court held that the Act's objective was to provide a cheap and speedy method for consolidating agricultural holdings, and the different procedures were justified. The classification was reasonable and did not violate Article 14.4. Arbitrary Powers of Consolidation Authorities under Sections 5, 9, 9-A, and 49:The appellants argued that Sections 5, 9, 9-A, and 49 conferred arbitrary powers on Consolidation authorities, depriving tenure-holders of court protection available to others. The court reiterated that the Act's objective justified the different procedures and authorities. The classification was reasonable and did not violate Article 14.5. Unreasonableness of Sections 9(2) and 9-A:The appellants claimed that Sections 9(2) and 9-A were unreasonable as they did not require the State Government and Gaon Sabha to be impleaded as necessary parties, unlike Section 229-B(3) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The court found no bar on a tenure-holder or claimant from impleading the State or Gaon Sabha in objections filed under Section 9(2). The word 'person' in Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(2) was interpreted to include the State Government and Gaon Sabha, allowing them to file objections.6. Admissibility of Unregistered Compromise in Evidence:The appellants argued that the compromise was inadmissible as it was not registered, despite affecting immovable property worth more than Rs. 100. The court distinguished the cases cited by the appellants and held that the compromise could be relied upon as an admission of antecedent title. The compromise recognized the existing title of the respondent and did not create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in immovable property, thereby not requiring registration.7. Sufficiency of Evidence Supporting the Deputy Director's Finding on Title:The appellants contended that the Deputy Director's finding on title was based on inadmissible evidence. The court found that the Deputy Director was entitled to believe the evidence presented by the respondent. The finding of fact that the Khata was ancestral was supported by the evidence and could not be disturbed.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the constitutionality of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the findings of the Deputy Director, Consolidation, regarding the title. The court found no violation of Article 14 and held that the procedures and powers conferred by the Act were reasonable and justified.