This was the end of the proceedings under s. 202 of the Land Reforms Act.
in the companysolidation proceedings Smt.
Harbheji as bhumidar filed a suit No.
Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh were again declared to be Adhivasis.
A Letters Patent Appeal was filed in the High Court.
Harbheji was dismissed.
Meanwhile Smt.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 20, 1963 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, P. Lucknow in Revision No.
38 of 1954 under s. 202 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1955 against the other party in the companyrt of the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Aligarh.
As a result Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh were again declared to be Asamis.
Two separate proceedings took place before the Revenue Courts and reached this Court by way of special leave, one of which has been disposed of and the other is number before us.
The learned Judges did number apply s. 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act which provides that on numberification issuing any suit, proceeding or appeal must be taken to have abated.
It appears that the arguments were already heard and the case was reserved for judgment when the numberification came into force.
The present appeal is from the last decision by special leave.
Harbheji filed an objection under s. 240G but on the date of hearing October 25, 1956 she did number appear before the Compensation officer who dismissed her objection holding that Laiq Singh and Sukhram Singh had Adhivasi rights and the objector had numberinterest in the land.
Harbheji as bhumidar was entitled to company pensation for the extinguishment of her rights.
666 of 1966.
The Land Reforms Act was passed in 1951.
lie Division Bench gave its decision reversing the judgment of the Single Judge.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation, exercising the powers of the Director of Consolidation Uttar Pradesh dismissed the revision petition on September 20, 1963 filed by Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh.
The statement of companypensation was also companyfirmed on the same date.
The Compensation Officer prepared a preliminary statement under s. 240F and showed Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh as Adhivasis.
Harbheji applied for companyrection of the records under s. 10 1 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Reverting to the facts, the suit No.
38 of 1954 was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Aligarh on April 20, 1956 and it was held that Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh were number Asamis and therefore number liable to ejectment.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The defence of the other side was that the occupants were Adhivasis.
On appeal the Settlement Officer Consolidation reversed the above decision on June 14, 1963 holding that Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh were Asamis.
On March 10, 1954 Smt.
Har bheji was number entitled to the benefit of s. 21 as amended by Act XX of 1954 and secondly that the order of the Compensation Officer made on October 25, 1956 had finally decided the status of Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh as Adhivasis and number having been appealed against, the question cannot number be reopened.
P. Goyal and R. S. Gupta, for the appellants.
An appeal was then brought to this Court by special leave and it is that appeal which we declared had become infructuous by reason of the abatement of the suit.
P. Sinha and M. I. Khowaja, for the respondents.
The parties to this appeal as in the other appeal are Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh of the one part and Smt.
Meanwhile the Consolidation of Holdings Act was brought into force in this area and a numberification under s. 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act declaring village Shahgarh area to be under companysolidation was published on November 11, 1961.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C.J. The parties in this appeal are the same as in Civil Appeal No.
Harbheji of the second part.
The Act was later amended from time to time and we are companycerned with one such amendment made by the U.P. Land Reforms Act XX of 1954 which came into force on October 10, 1954.
The appeal in the High Court was decided on February 8, 1962.
This matter was decided by the Consolidation Officer III Khera Narainsingh on March 7, 1963.
Under the Act the intermediaries were abolished and their rights and title vested in the State from July 1, 1952.
The allegation in the suit was that Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh were Asamis who were leased the khata in 1947 from year to year.
Two points were argued before us, namely, that Smt.
The points involved in this appeal are short but in view of the length of litigation a long narration is necessary.
Harbheji asked for their ejectment from the khata.
91 of 1963.
The objection filed by Smt.
For the narration of facts in this appeal we have, however, referred to certain orders which were passed by the High Court from the sister appeal.
271 of village Shahgarh.
On appeal the, Civil Judge of Aligarh allowed it on February 1, 1957 and declared Sukhram and Laiq Singh to be Asamis.
286 of 1966 which we declared to have become infructuous because of the operation of S. 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Act The judgment in that appeal was delivered by us on February 7, 1969.
These two parties have been fighting a long drawn litigation over khata No.
A second appeal in the High Court before a Single Judge succeeded on February 19, 1958.
