UP Zamindari Abolition Act | SDM Can't Hear Land Asami Suit After Name In Revenue Record Is Finalised Under Consolidation Proceedings: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that once a person's name has been recorded in revenue records under consolidations proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, proceedings under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 for declaration as asami would not be maintainable.

Section 49 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 specifically bars civil courts jurisdiction in case of land or any matter for which proceedings have to be undertaken under the Act including when notification has been issued for a declaration and adjudication of right of tenure-holder in respect of land lying in an area or adjudication of rights arising out of consolidation proceedings where proceedings must be undertaken under the Act.

Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 provides for declaration suit by a person seeking rights as asami in a holding or part thereof.

Justice Irshad Ali held,

“On bare perusal of provisions contained under Section 49 of the Act, it is evident that once name of the person has been incorporated in the revenue record under consolidation proceedings and it has finalized, then the suit under Section 229 B is not maintainable before the S.D.M.”

Respondents filed a suit under Section 229B UPZALR before UP Zila Adhikari Patti Pratapgarh stating that the land in dispute was their bhumidhari and they were in possession since their father's time. It was argued that the petitioner in connivance with officers had got his name altered in the revenue records when she had no connection with the land.

Before the SDM a compromise was produced to show that respondents are the actual shareholders. The petitioner challenged the compromise, however, order was passed in favour of respondents. A revision was filed by the petitioner which was allegedly dismissed without perusal of evidence. The revision court directed the parties to file a regular suit. Hence the petitioner approached the High Court.

Holding that the suit was not maintainable under Section 49 of the UPZALR Act, the Court held that the SDM had acted without jurisdiction. It held that deciding the suit in terms of the compromise was illegal and the order was liable to be set aside. Further, the order passed by the revisional court was also set aside as it was in “utter disregard of law”.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Title: Smt.Amina v. Up Zila Adhikari Patti Pratapgarh And Others 5 [WRIT - C No. - 1003005 of 2002]

Click Here To Read/Download Order