Supreme Court of India

RANDHIR SINGH AND ORS.versusDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

Citation: 1997 INSC 345
Decided: 1 April 1997
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYD P WADHWA

Holding

Buildings occupying land and used for commercial purposes are excluded from the definition of "land" under Section 3(5) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954, so the Settlement Officer lacks jurisdiction and the matter must be decided by the appropriate court.

Summary

The appellants and respondents were holding haats (market places) on land in Uttar Pradesh. The dispute centered on whether the Settlement Officer under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 could adjudicate a case involving buildings on that land used for commercial purposes. Section 3(5) of the Act defines "land" as land used for agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, pisciculture, poultry and the site of a house or similar structures, thereby excluding commercial buildings. The Supreme Court held that such commercial structures are not covered by the definition and thus lie outside the Act's jurisdiction, leaving the matter for a proper court. It also noted that under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the question of vesting of such lands in the State remains open because the State was not a party to the proceedings. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with no costs awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the definition of "land" under Section 3(5) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 includes buildings used for commercial purposes.
Whether the Settlement Officer has jurisdiction to decide disputes involving such commercial buildings.
Whether lands holding haats vest in the State under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 when the State is not a party to the proceedings.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Consolidation of Holdings Actdefinition of landjurisdictioncommercial buildingsU.P. Zamindari Abolitionland reformsstate vestingappeal dismissed

Judgment

A                         RANDHIR SINGH AND ORS.
                                          v.
                 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
                             AND ORS.

                                   APRIL 1, 1997
B
                 (K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

          U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954: Section 3(5).

C         'Land'-Definition of-Buildings occupying the land and used for com-
    mercial pzuposes held not covered by Act.

          U.P. Zamindari Abolition a11d La11d Refomzs Act, 1950:

          Appellallls and respondents holding haats-Question whether such
D lands vest in the State on abolition of the estates etc.-Questio11 left opm
    since the State is not a party to these proceedings.                              ,
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1097 and
    1098 of 1979.

E        From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.77 of the Allahabad High
    Court in S.A. Nos. 1047-48 of 1970.

          T.N. Singh, B.M. Sharma and S.N. Singh for the Appellants.

          The following order of the Court was delivered :

F         These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the
    Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, made on 30.11.1977 in
    Special Appeal Nos. 1047 & 1048 of 1970.

           It is not necessary to dilate upon the three-tier history of the litiga-
    tion. Suffice it to state that pursuant to the remand order made by the High
G   Court in the last instance, the Deputy Director has gone into the question
    whether the Settlement Officer under the Consolidation Act has jurisdic-
    tion to decide the dispute. Section 3(5) of the U.P. Consolidation of
    Holdings Act defines "land" to mean the land held or occupied for the
    purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry
H   which includes pissiculture and poultry form and also the site, being part
                                           488
      RANDHIR SINGH v. DY. DIREC'TOR OF CONSOLIDATION                   489

of a holding, of a house of other similar structures.                          A
      In view of the above definition under Section 3(5) of the Consolida-
tion Act, the buildings occupying the land and used for commercial pur-
poses are not covered by the Act. Therefore, the High Court had lef<. the
dispute open for a decision by the appropriate Court.
                                                                               B
      It is an admitted position that the appellants and the respondents are
holding haats in those areas. Under the U.P. Land Reforms Act, 1950 the
question whether such lands vest in the State on abolition of the estates
etc. is also a matter left open since the State is not a party to these
proceedings. It may be open to the appellants to have their right adjudi-
cated as ordered by the High Court in an appropriate proceeding accord-        C
ing to law.

      The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

T.N.A.                                                   Appeals dismissed.
                                                                               D

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Consolidation of Holdings Act"Sign in to search