1974 (2) TMI 98 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Impact of Section 5(2)(a) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on writ petitions or special appeals arising from judgments or orders in suits or proceedings related to declaration of rights in land covered by a notification under Section 4 of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Nature and Character of Proceedings under Article 226:
The Court first examined the nature of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was emphasized that an order passed by the High Court under Article 226 is an exercise of its extraordinary original civil jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj held that a writ petition is independent of the original controversy and not a continuation of the original suit or proceeding. Consequently, orders passed in the original suit or proceeding do not merge with the orders passed in the writ petition. This distinction is crucial in understanding that writ petitions are not affected by Section 5(2)(a) of the Act.

Scope of Section 5(2)(a) of the Act:
Section 5(2)(a) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act states that upon the publication of a notification under Section 4, every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit or proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land shall stand abated. The Court clarified that this section applies only to suits and proceedings directly related to the declaration of rights or interests in land and not to writ petitions under Article 226, which are independent proceedings.

Interpretation of "Pending" Proceedings:
The term "pending" was examined using Stroud's Judicial Dictionary and the Supreme Court's interpretation in Asgarali Nazarali Singaporewalla v. State of Bombay. A proceeding is considered pending if the court has the power to make an order on the matters in issue. Since writ petitions do not decide the merits of the original suit or proceeding, the original suit or proceeding cannot be considered pending in the High Court during the writ petition.

Legislative Competence and Constitutional Validity:
The Court observed that if Section 5(2)(a) were construed to apply to writ petitions, it would be ultra vires of the State Legislature's powers, as it would curtail the High Court's constitutional powers under Article 226. The Full Bench in Adarsh Bhandar, Aligarh v. Sales Tax Officer, Aligarh, and the Supreme Court in AIR 1963 SC 946, held that State legislation cannot override or contravene the High Court's powers under Article 226.

Section 52(2) of the Act:
Section 52(2) of the Act provides that any order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction in writ petitions shall be given effect to by the prescribed authorities. This indicates the legislature's intent that writ petitions remain unaffected by Section 5(2)(a).

Distinguishing Case Laws:
The Court distinguished the present case from Special Appeal No. 455 of 1972 and Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh, noting that these cases did not involve the curtailment of the High Court's powers under Article 226.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that Section 5(2)(a) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has no impact on writ petitions or special appeals arising from them, where judgments or orders passed in suits or proceedings related to the declaration of rights in land covered by a notification under Section 4 of the Act are in challenge. The constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 remains unaffected.

Judgment:
The Full Bench answered the referred question by stating that Section 5(2)(a) of the Act does not affect writ petitions or special appeals arising from judgments or orders in suits or proceedings related to the declaration of rights in land covered by a notification under Section 4 of the Act.

Summary:
The High Court of Allahabad, in a detailed judgment, concluded that Section 5(2)(a) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, does not impact writ petitions or special appeals arising from judgments or orders in suits or proceedings related to the declaration of rights in land covered by a notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Court emphasized that writ petitions under Article 226 are independent proceedings and not a continuation of the original suit or proceeding, thus remaining unaffected by the abatement provisions of Section 5(2)(a). The Court also highlighted the constitutional limitations on the State Legislature's power to curtail the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226.