Holding

Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is a temporary bar on civil court jurisdiction during consolidation proceedings and does not confer on the Consolidation Officer the power to deprive a tenure‑holder of vested ownership or to vest ownership in another.

Summary

The dispute concerned ownership of ancestral land in Mustafabad village, originally belonging to Angat and inherited by his sons, including Kalyan Singh, who was a co‑owner before consolidation proceedings began. Ram Jai Lal, an uncle, sought to have Kalyan Singh’s name removed from the revenue record under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, claiming the latter was absent, and the Consolidation Officer expunged his name, declaring his civil death. Kalyan Singh filed a suit for declaration of his share, which was decreed in his favour, but the Consolidation Officer’s order was later challenged, leading to the present appeals. The Supreme Court held that Section 49 merely suspends civil court jurisdiction during pending consolidation proceedings and does not empower the Consolidation Officer to divest a tenure‑holder of vested title or to grant ownership to another. Consequently, the 1960 order was declared null and void, and the High Court’s interference with the Board of Revenue’s remand was upheld, confirming Kalyan Singh’s co‑ownership and joint possession rights. The appeals and the accompanying contempt petition were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 empowers a Consolidation Officer to grant ownership of land to a person who was not a pre‑existing tenure‑holder.
Whether the Consolidation Officer can extinguish the vested title of a tenure‑holder by expunging his name from the revenue record.
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Board of Revenue’s order remanding the suit for determination of the applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Legislation cited

Specific Relief Act, 1963s. 34
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953s. 3(11), s. 49
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950s. 122-B

Subjects

Section 49Consolidation OfficerU.P. Consolidation of Holdings ActSpecific Relief ActLand ownershipCivil court jurisdictionAncestral propertyTenure‑holder

Judgment

[2024] 5 S.C.R. 492 : 2024 INSC 380

Prashant Singh & Ors. Etc.
v.
Meena & Ors. Etc.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8743-8744 of 2014)
25 April 2024
[Surya Kant* and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the consolidation officer can grant ownership to any person
in respect of a land/property inherited before commencement
proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

Headnotes
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – s. 49 – Whether
the consolidation officer can grant ownership to a person in
respect of a land/property:
Held: Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
(“1953 Act”) is a provision of transitory suspension of jurisdiction of
Civil or Revenue Court only during the period when consolidation
proceedings are pending — Such suspension of jurisdiction of
Civil or Revenue Court through the non obstante provision is only
with respect to the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure
holders — The duty of a Consolidation Officer under Section 49 of
the 1953 Act is to prevent fragmentation and consolidate the different
parcels of land of a tenure holder — The power under Section 49
of the 1953 Act cannot be exercised to take away the vested title
of a tenure holder — Kalyan Singh had acquired ancestral rights
as a tenure holder – He was co-owner in the suit land much before
the consolidation proceedings commenced — The only declaration
and adjudication of rights of Ramji Lal or Kalyan Singh that a
Consolidation Officer could undertake under Section 49 of the
1953 Act was to avoid the fragmentation of their respective land
holdings and consolidate or redistribute the parcels of land among
them — The provision does not enable the Consolidation Officer
to grant ownership to Ramji Lal in respect of a property, which,
before the consolidation proceedings, never vested in him, vice
versa, the Consolidation Officer could not take away the ownership
rights of Kalyan Singh which he had already inherited much before
the commencement of the consolidation proceedings — The order
* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 493

Prashant Singh & Ors. Etc. v. Meena & Ors. Etc.

passed by Consolidation Officer has rightly been held to be null
and void and without any jurisdiction by High Court. [Paras 12,13]
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – s. 49 — Whether High
Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the order
of remand passed by the Board of Revenue for determination
of the legal issue of maintainability.
Held: High court was correct in interfering in the Board of Revenue’s
order — As once Kalyan Singh is held to be co-owner in the subject
property, the exclusive possession of the land, if any, with Ramji
Lal, was joint in nature — Kalyan Singh was already deemed to
be in joint possession of the subject land in the eyes of law, hence
he was not required to seek a decree of possession qua his share
in the suit land. [Para 17]

Case Law Cited
Attar Singh v. State of U.P. [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 928;
Amar Nath v. Kewla Devi [2014] 14 SCR 677 : (2014)
11 SCC 273; Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed [1981]
1 SCR 863 : (1980) 4 SCC 396 —relied on.

List of Acts
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; Specific Relief Act, 1963.

List of Keywords
Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; Exercise
of power by Consolidation Officer under Section 49 of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; Usurping of power by
Consolidation Officer.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.8743-8744 of
2014
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.01.2013 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in WP No.752 of 2007 and WP No.305 of
2001 (Old No. WP No.22810 of 1989)
With
Civil Appeal No.8971 of 2014 and Contempt Petition (C) No.86 of
2024 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8743-8744 of 2014
494 [2024] 5 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Appearances for Parties
S.R. Singh, Kavin Gulati, Sr. Advs., Sushant Kumar Yadav, Ajay
Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Gaurav Lomes, Prithvi Yadav, Anurag Singh,
Dhroov Kumar Singh, Sanjiv Tandan, Ms. Swapnil Singh, Ms. Radha
Rajput, Ankur Yadav, Yash Pal Dhingra, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,
Rohit Amit Sthalekar, Purnendu Bajpai, Shashank Singh, Ms. Abha
Jain, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Akshat Kumar, M.P. Parthiban, Tanmaya
Agarwal, Wrick Chatterjee, Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Vinayak Mohan, A.
P. Mohanty, Mohith Sivakumar, Dushyant Sharma, Ankur Prakash,
Mohd. Saquib Siddiqui, Amod Kumar Bidhuri, Ms. Srishti Kasana,
Ms. Priyanka Singh, Yudhister Bharadwaj, Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgement
Surya Kant, J.
1. Application (IA No.115495/2021) for bringing on record the legal
representatives of deceased appellant no.2 is allowed after condoning
the delay, if any. Cause title be amended accordingly.
2. In these civil appeals the controversy revolves around the ownership
rights over Khasra Nos.115, 151 and 152, situated within the Revenue
Estate of village Mustafabad, District Haridwar, Uttaranchal (now
Uttarakhand). It is broadly not in dispute that the subject land is
an ancestral property originally owned by Angat, who died leaving
behind three sons, namely, Ramji Lal, Khushi Ram and Pyara. Pyara
died issue-less and his share devolved equally upon his other two
brothers. Khushi Ram also seems to have died before 1950 leaving
behind his son Kalyan Singh, who succeeded his father’s share in the
subject property. The fact that Kalyan Singh was co-owner/co-sharer
in the subject land is fortified from the entries in the revenue record,
which the appellants have produced in these proceedings as well.
3. It seems that consolidation proceedings were initiated in village
Mustafabad in late 50s or early 60s in accordance with the provisions
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short, the “1953
Act”). Ramji Lal – one of the uncles of Kalyan Singh – approached
the Consolidation Officer in the pending reference pertaining to
their land under the erstwhile Section 9(3) of the 1953 Act (i.e., as
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 495

Prashant Singh & Ors. Etc. v. Meena & Ors. Etc.

it stood before the U.P. (Amendment) Act 8 of 1963), claiming that
whereabouts of Kalyan Singh were unknown and hence his name may
be expunged from the ownership entry of the revenue record. The
Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 08.05.1960 on the basis
of a report dated 17.03.1960 of the Assistant Consolidation Officer,
which inter alia claimed that Kalyan Singh – co-tenure holder had
not been heard for last 8 of 10 years, he did not arrive in the village
and an affidavit to this effect was filed by his uncle Ramji Lal. Since
all efforts to secure service on Kalyan Singh failed, the Consolidation
Officer, “in the interest of correction of record”, expunged the name
of Kalyan Singh from the record and declared his civil death. On
this premise, Ramji Lal (later on his legal representatives) started
claiming to be the sole owner(s) of the entire land holding of Angat.
4. Kalyan Singh then instituted Suit No.19/1985 on 12.03.1985 before
the Assistant Collector, First Class, Haridwar for declaration of his
half share in the suit property. The suit was decreed in his favor.
Ramji Lal filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 06.08.1986. Ramji
Lal then approached the Board of Revenue in a Second Appeal.
That appeal was allowed in part on 31.07.1989 and the suit was
remanded with a direction to adjudicate the dispute regarding Khasra
No.115 afresh after forming an issue with respect to applicability of
Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Kalyan Singh challenged
the aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue before the High Court.
His writ petition has been allowed by the High Court vide impugned
judgment dated 16.01.2013.
5. We have heard learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellants as
well as learned senior counsel who is representing the prospective
vendees in whose favour Kalyan Singh had allegedly executed an
agreement to sale and a mortgage deed. The other learned counsels
representing the interested parties have also been heard and the
material placed on record perused.
6. The sheet anchor of Mr. S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel for the
appellants, is Section 49 of the 1953 Act. It is urged that the order
dated 08.05.1960 passed by the Competent Authority in exercise of
its powers under that provision, having attained finality, Kalyan Singh
lost his right, title or interest in the subject land. It is contended that
not only the subsequent suit filed by Kalyan Singh was expressly
precluded under the said provision, such a suit was hopelessly time
496 [2024] 5 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

barred. It is then argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction
in interfering with the order of remand passed by the Board of
Revenue for determination of the legal issue as to maintainability of
a simpliciter suit for declaration, without seeking consequential relief
of possession filed by Kalyan Singh. The Board, it is asserted, rightly
remanded the suit for determination of its maintainability keeping in
mind Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
7. Contrarily, it is urged by learned senior counsel/other counsels for the
respondents that neither Section 49 of the 1953 Act was attracted
in the instant case nor the Consolidation Officer was competent to
rob off Kalyan Singh of his ancestral right as a tenure holder on the
subject land. Such a power, according to learned senior counsel for
the respondents, is beyond the purview of Section 49 of the 1953 Act.
As regard to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, it is urged
that since Kalyan Singh was co-owner in the subject land along with
his uncle Ramji Lal or his successors, the possession of the subject
land continued in favour of all the co-owners. Consequently, even if
one of them was in actual physical possession, such possession was
of permissible nature, for and on behalf of all the co-owners. It is thus
maintained that, no consequential relief like a decree for possession
was required to be sought by Kalyan Singh in his declaratory suit.
8. Section 49 of the 1953 Act reads as follows:
“49. Bar to Civil Court jurisdiction — Notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law Courts for the time
being in force, the declaration and adjudication of rights
of tenure-holder in respect of land, lying in an area, for
which a notification has been issued under sub-section
(2) of Section 4, or adjudication of any other right arising
out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a
proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this
Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of
this Act and no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any
suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or
with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding
could or ought to have been taken under this Act:
Provided that nothing in this section shall preclude the
Assistant Collector from initiating proceedings under
Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 497

Prashant Singh & Ors. Etc. v. Meena & Ors. Etc.

Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act 1 of 1951) in respect of any
land, possession over which has been delivered or deemed
to be delivered to a Gram Sabha under or in accordance
with the provisions of this Act.”
9. On a plain reading, we find that Section 49 of the 1953 Act contemplates
bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil or Revenue Court for the grant of
declaration or adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect
of land lying in an area for which consolidation proceedings have
commenced. Section 49 of the 1953 Act is a provision of transitory
suspension of jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Court only during the
period when consolidation proceedings are pending. Notably, such
suspension of jurisdiction of these Courts through the non obstante
provision is only with respect to the declaration and adjudication of
rights of tenure holders. In other words, unless a person is a pre-
existing tenure holder, Section 49 does not come into operation.
10. The expression “tenure holder” has been defined in Section 3(11)
of the 1953 Act and it reads as follows:
“(11) “Tenure-holder” means a bhumidhar with transferable
rights or bhumidhar with non-transferable rights and
includes—
(a) an asami,
(b) a Government lessee or Government grantee, or
(c) a co-operative farming society satisfying such
conditions as may be prescribed;”
11. It may be seen that a tenure holder means a bhumidhar with
transferable or non-transferable rights. The question that arises further
is as to what kind of rights of such tenure holders can be declared
or adjudicated in exercise of powers under Section 49 of the 1953
Act? In this regard, the scheme of the statute becomes very material.
12. The object of the 1953 Act is to prevent fragmentation of the land
holdings and consolidate them in such a fair and equitable manner
that each tenure holder gets nearly equivalent land rights in the same
revenue estate.1 The duty of a Consolidation Officer under Section

1 Attar Singh v. State of U.P. [1959] Supp. 1 SCR 928, para 3
498 [2024] 5 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

49 of the 1953 Act is to prevent fragmentation and consolidate the
different parcels of land of a tenure holder. Such a power can be
exercised only in respect of those persons who are already the tenure
holders of the land. Conversely, the power under Section 49 of the
1953 Act cannot be exercised to take away the vested title of a tenure
holder. No such jurisdiction is conferred upon a Consolidation Officer
or any other Authority under the 1953 Act.2 The power to declare the
ownership in an immovable property can be exercised only by a Civil
Court save and except when such jurisdiction is barred expressly or
by implication under a law. Section 49 of the 1953 Act does not and
cannot be construed as a bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court
to determine the ownership rights.3
13. Having held so, it is not difficult to explain that Kalyan Singh had
acquired ancestral rights as a tenure holder. He was co-owner in the
suit land much before the consolidation proceedings commenced.
Hence, the only declaration and adjudication of rights of Ramji Lal
or Kalyan Singh that a Consolidation Officer could undertake under
Section 49 of the 1953 Act was to avoid the fragmentation of their
respective land holdings and consolidate or redistribute the parcels of
land among them. As analyzed above, the provision does not enable
the Consolidation Officer to grant ownership to Ramji Lal in respect of
a property, which, before the consolidation proceedings, never vested
in him. Vice versa, the Consolidation Officer could not take away
the ownership rights of Kalyan Singh which he had already inherited
much before the commencement of the consolidation proceedings.
14. That being so, the order dated 08.05.1960 passed by the Consolidation
Officer has rightly been held to be null and void and without any
jurisdiction. It was passed usurping a power fraudulently, which
never ever vested in a Consolidation Officer. The said order is thus
liable to be ignored for all intents and purposes. Having held that, it
is not necessary for us to go into the question of fraud played upon
Kalyan Singh in securing that order with or without collusion of the
Consolidation Officer. All that is required to be held is that the order
dated 08.05.1960 had no binding force or any adverse effect on the
rights of Kalyan Singh.

2 Amar Nath v. Kewla Devi [2014] 14 SCR 677 : (2014) 11 SCC 273, para 17
3 Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed [1981] 1 SCR 863 : (1980) 4 SCC 396, para 12-13
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 499

Prashant Singh & Ors. Etc. v. Meena & Ors. Etc.

15. In all fairness, learned senior counsel for the appellants has placed
reliance on a decision of this Court in Sita Ram vs. Chhota Bhondey
& Ors.,4 for contending that during the pendency of consolidation
proceedings, the Authority under the Act assumes the jurisdiction of
the Civil Court to determine all types of rights including the dispute
regarding title over the land. In our considered opinion that is not
the ratio decidendi of the decision in Sita Ram (supra). That was a
case where the dispute related to sirdari holdings which were subject
matter of the proceedings under the 1953 Act. These proceedings
attained finality when the writ petition challenging the order of the
Deputy Director of Consolidation was dismissed in limine and that
order was further upheld by this Court under Article 133 of the
Constitution of India. Thereafter, the unsuccessful party filed a Civil
Suit seeking a declaration that the order passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation (which had been upheld by the High Court
and this Court) was without jurisdiction. The said suit was contested
with an objection that it was barred by Section 49 of the 1953 Act. In
this backdrop, this Court very aptly held that the subsequent civil suit
was barred under Section 49 of the 1953 Act. The facts will speak
for themselves as to how Section 49 of the 1953 Act was construed
by this Court in the light of the events noticed above.
16. However, that is not the factual situation here. We may hasten to add
that in the present case, Kalyan Singh filed the suit for declaration
questioning the deletion of his name from the revenue record as a
co-owner. As held earlier in paragraph 14 of this order, the order
dated 08.05.1960 of the Consolidation Officer in the instant case was
totally without jurisdiction and not being an order within the framework
of the 1953 Act, and it could not bind the rights of Kalyan Singh.
17. As regard to the contention that the High Court ought not have
interfered with the Board’s Order remanding the case to the Trial
Court to examine the legal issue of applicability of Section 34 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963, the same just deserves to be noticed and
rejected. We say so for the reason that once Kalyan Singh is held
to be co-owner in the subject property, the exclusive possession of
the land, if any, with Ramji Lal, was joint in nature and it was for and
on behalf of all the co-owners. Kalyan Singh was already deemed to

4 [1990] Supp. 2 SCR 184 : 1991 Supp (1) SCC 556
500 [2024] 5 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

be in joint possession of the subject land in the eyes of law, hence
he was not required to seek a decree of possession qua his share
in the suit land.
18. For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in these
appeals, which are accordingly dismissed.
Contempt Petition (C) No.86/2024
19. In view of the fact that the appeals have been decided on merits and
Kalyan Singh’s legal heir can now seek consequential rights in the
suit land, we do not deem it necessary to entertain these contempt
proceedings and leave the parties to work out their remedies.
20. The contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Headnotes prepared by: Result of the case:
Gaurav Upadhyay, Hony. Associate Editor Appeals and
(Verified by: Shadan Farasat, Adv.) Contempt petition dismissed.