2017 (8) TMI 1477 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was required to be obtained in terms of Section 5(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before sale of the plot No. 386 (re-numbered as plot No. 348) in consolidation proceedings and hereinafter referred to as the suit property? Held that - The purpose of a consolidation scheme is to provide consolidation of agricultural holdings. Abadi land, groves etc. are kept outside the scope of consolidation scheme. They cannot be re-allocated or re-allotted to any other person. Therefore, strictly speaking, they are not subject matter of the consolidation scheme. The intention of introducing Section 5(c)(ii) of the Act was that if the land holding is subject to consolidation proceedings then permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is required before the same is transferred. This is so because if the land, which is subject matter of consolidation proceedings, is sold or permitted to be transferred during consolidation proceedings, it could affect the entire consolidation scheme - However, if the land is not subject matter of the consolidation scheme, though it may be part of the holding of the tenure holder, then no permission is required. Admittedly, the suit property was Chakout and outside the purview of the consolidation scheme inasmuch as its value could not be taken into consideration while framing the scheme and it could not be allocated or allotted to any other person. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was required for the sale of a plot in consolidation proceedings.
2. Whether the learned Single Judge exceeded the scope of review in reopening the matter.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was whether permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was necessary for the sale of a plot in consolidation proceedings. The suit property in question was declared as 'Chakout' and was outside the consolidation scheme. The dispute arose when one brother sold his share to the defendants without obtaining permission as required under Section 5(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The trial court initially ruled that no permission was needed as the land was outside the consolidation scheme. However, the first appellate court and subsequent second appeal held that permission was indeed required. The review petition was filed on the grounds that since the land was not part of the consolidation scheme, permission was not necessary. The learned Single Judge allowed the review petition, stating that no permission was required for the sale of the land in question.

2. The appellants challenged the judgment on two grounds. Firstly, they argued that the learned Single Judge exceeded the scope of review by going beyond the matter's reconsideration. Secondly, they contended that even if the land was not part of the consolidation scheme, it was still part of the holding and should be covered by Section 5 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that if a court finds an error on the face of the record, it can correct it in a review. In this case, the court had not considered the fact that the land was 'Chakout' and not part of the consolidation scheme. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in reconsidering the matter. The Court further analyzed Section 5(c) of the Act, emphasizing that the purpose of the consolidation scheme is to consolidate agricultural holdings, excluding 'Abadi' land and groves. Since the suit property was 'Chakout' and outside the consolidation scheme, no permission was required for its sale. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. The status quo granted earlier was vacated, and pending applications were disposed of.