1978 (9) TMI 189 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act during the pendency of proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
2. Applicability of Section 5(2)(a) and Section 49 of the Consolidation Act to proceedings under the Ceiling Act.
3. Impact of the Explanation added to Section 5(2) of the Consolidation Act by the U.P. Laws Amendment Act No. 34 of 1974.
4. Applicability of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings under the Ceiling Act.
5. Principle of comity of courts in the context of overlapping proceedings under the Ceiling Act and Consolidation Act.
6. Potential anomalies arising from concurrent or sequential proceedings under the Ceiling Act and Consolidation Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Proceedings under the Ceiling Act during Consolidation Proceedings:
The core legal question was whether proceedings under the Ceiling Act can continue during the pendency of proceedings under the Consolidation Act. The court noted that the Consolidation Act involves the determination of title and consolidation of holdings into compact areas, whereas the Ceiling Act deals with declaring surplus land of a tenure-holder. The Full Bench referenced previous judgments and legislative amendments to conclude that proceedings under the Ceiling Act are maintainable during consolidation operations.

2. Applicability of Section 5(2)(a) and Section 49 of the Consolidation Act:
Section 5(2)(a) of the Consolidation Act provides for the abatement of certain proceedings upon the commencement of consolidation operations. Section 49 debars civil or revenue courts from entertaining suits regarding rights in land under consolidation. The court analyzed these provisions and previous judgments, concluding that Section 5 covers pending proceedings while Section 49 addresses future proceedings. The Supreme Court had previously held that proceedings under the Ceiling Act would abate under Section 5, but the legislative amendment clarified that such proceedings do not fall under this provision.

3. Impact of the Explanation Added to Section 5(2) of the Consolidation Act:
The U.P. Laws Amendment Act No. 34 of 1974 added an explanation to Section 5(2), stating that proceedings under the Ceiling Act are not deemed to be proceedings for declaration of rights or interest in any land. This clarification removed the bar imposed by Section 5(2)(a), allowing ceiling proceedings to continue despite ongoing consolidation operations. The court extended this reasoning to Section 49, interpreting that the explanation also applies to future litigation, thereby excluding ceiling proceedings from the purview of the Consolidation Act.

4. Applicability of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The petitioner argued that ceiling proceedings should be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court rejected this argument, referencing previous decisions that Section 10, C.P.C., which relates to the jurisdiction of courts, does not apply to proceedings under the Ceiling Act. The court emphasized that the issues in ceiling proceedings differ from those in consolidation proceedings, thus Section 10, C.P.C., is not applicable.

5. Principle of Comity of Courts:
The petitioner contended that ceiling proceedings should be stayed on the principle of comity of courts to avoid conflicting orders. The court dismissed this argument, explaining that the Consolidation Act and Ceiling Act serve different purposes and cover different areas. The court noted that decisions under the Ceiling Act are binding and not subject to the principle of comity of courts, as consolidation proceedings respect final declarations of rights by other authorities.

6. Potential Anomalies from Concurrent or Sequential Proceedings:
The court acknowledged potential anomalies, such as a tenure-holder losing land due to overlapping proceedings under the Ceiling Act and Consolidation Act. The court provided examples and clarified that legislative provisions ensure that decisions in ceiling proceedings are binding, even in consolidation cases. The court recognized that some anomalies might require legislative intervention but concluded that the legislative mandate necessitates the continuation of ceiling proceedings despite consolidation operations.

Conclusion:
The court answered the question of law in the negative, holding that proceedings under the Ceiling Act are not liable to be stayed during the pendency of consolidation proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed with costs. The concurring judges agreed with the Chief Justice's judgment and had nothing to add.