SURAJ PAL (D) THR. LR.versusRAM MANORATH & ORS.

                      [2017) 8 S.C.R. 595


                    SURAJ PAL (D) THR. LR.                            A
                                 v.
                   RAM MANORATH & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No .. 5883 of 2013)
                        AUGUST 11, 2017                               B
       [MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.)
        Land laws - UP Consolidation of Holdings Act~ s.5(c)(ii) -
 Permission of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under. if required
.before sale of thi suit property - Held: The intention of introducing C.
 s.5(c)(ii) was that if the land holding is subject to consolidation
proceedings then permission of Settlement Officer (Consolidation)
 is required before the same is transferred - This is so because if the
 land, which is subject matter of consolidation proceedings, is sold
 or permitted to be transferred during consolidation proceedings, it
 could affect the entire consolidation scheme - However. admittedly, D
 the suit property was used as 'Abadi' land and was declared
  "Chakout" and thus~ outside the purview of the consolidation
 scheme - Hence, no permission of the Settlement Officer
 (Consolidation) was required to sell t~e suit property in questibn.
       Review- Scope of- Held: If a court finds that it has committed E
 an error which is apparent on the face of record and that error is
pointed out to it in a review petition, there is nothing which prevents
 the court from correcting the error - In the instant case, the Single
Judge of High Co,urt did not iake into consideration the arguments •
.raised that suit property was· 'chakout' and therefore, was not part F
 of the consolidation scheme - Therefore, the Single Judge was
justified in reconsidering the matter.
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
        HELD: 1. :i\,sfar as the scope of review is.concerned, if a
.court finds that it iias committed an .error which is apparent on G
 the face of the record and that error is pointed out to it in a review
 petition, there is nothing which. prevents the.court from correcting
 the error. ln the judgment initial•y passed. by the Single .Judge of
 the High Court, the court did not take into c11nsideration the
 arguments raised that this portion of land was 'chakout' and
                                                                      H
                                 595
596           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017) 8 S.C.R. .


A therefore, was not part of the consolidation scheme. Therefore,
  the Single Judge was justified in reconsidering the matter.
  [Para 6) [598-BJ
             2. The purpose of a consolidation scheme is to provide
      consolidation of agricultural holdings. Abadi land, groves etc.
 B    are kept outside the scope of consolidation scheme. They cannot
      be re-allocated or re-allotted to any other person. Therefore,
      strictly speaking, they are not subject matter of the consolidation
      scheme. The intention of introducing Section 5(c)(ii) of the U.P.
      Consolidation of Holdings Act was that if the land holding is subject
      to consolidation proceedings then permission of the Settlement
 C    Officer (Consolidation) is required before the same is transferred.
      This is so because if the land, which is subject matter of
      consolidation proceedings, is sold or permitted to be transferred
      during consolidation proceedings, it could affect the entire
      consolidation scheme. However, if the land is not subject matter
 D    of the consolidation scheme, though it may be part of the holding
      of the tenure holder, then no permission is required. Admittedly,
      the suit property was "Chakout" and outside the purview of the
      consolidation scheme inasmuch as its value could not be taken
      into consideration while framing the scheme and it could not be
       allocated or allotted to any other person. [Para 8) (598-F-H; 599-
 E    A-BJ
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5883
      of2013.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2007 in Review
 F Application No. 247459 of2006 in Second Appeal No. 1540of1982 of
   the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
            Abhisth Kumar, Adv. for the Appellants.
           Yash Pal Dhingra, Shibahsish Misra, Ms. Mona K. Rajvanshi,
      Anurag Kashyap, Tajaswina Sagar, Advs. for the Respondents.
 G
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            DEEPAK GUPTA, J. I. The appellant is aggrieved by the order
      passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil
      Misc. Review Application No.247459 of 2006 in Second Appeal
      No. 1540 of 1982.
 H
        SURAJ PAL (D) THR. LR. v. RAM MANORATH & ORS.                             597
                       [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

           2. The main issue which arises for consideration is whether A
    permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was required to be
    obtained in terms of Section 5(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
    Act (for short 'the Act') before sale of the plot No. 386 (re-numbered
    as plot No. 348) in consolidation proceedings and hereinafter referred to
    as the suit property.
                                                                                  B
.         3. The admitted facts are that the suit property was land used as
   'Abadi' and was declared 'Chakout' (meaning out of the consolidation
   scheme) after the preliminary survey was conducted. Four brothers
   were co-tenure holders of the land in dispute. One brother executed a
   sale deed of his l/4'h share in favour of respondents-defendants. The
   remaining three brothers filed a suit for permanent injunction against the     C
. respondents-defendants alleging that the sale is void since no permission
   of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as envisaged under Section
  'S(c)(ii) was obtained. They also claimed that they are in possession of
   the suit property and the respondents-defendants are trying to make
   construction on the land and had illegally constructed a 'kothari' on the      D
   suit property. The respondents-defendants clai_med they were in
   possession but denied that they had raised any structure and submitted
   that since the land was not subject to the consolidation scheme, no
   permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was necessary.
   The suit was dismissed by the trial court mainly on the ground that no
   permissfon of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was required since        E
   the land was outside the consolidation scheme. The plaintiffs filed an
   appeal. The first appellate court allowed the appeal holding that Section
   5(c)(ii) of the Act was applicable and since no permission in terms thereof
   had been obtained, the sale deed was void and ineffective. Thereafter,
   the defendants filed second appeal which was dismissed. ·                      F
            4. Thereafter, review petition was filed mainly on the ground that
     since the land in dispute did not form part of the consolidation scheme,
    ·permission under Section 5(c)(ii) of the Act was not required. The learned
     Single Judge elaborately discussed the objects, reasons, scheme and the
     provisions of the Act and came to the conclusion that no permission was      G
     required to sell the land in question. The review petition and appeal were
     allowed by the impugned order.
          5. The appellants challenge the impugned judgment on two
    grounds. Firstly, that the learned Single Judge has reopened the matter
    and gone beyond the scope of review a~d secondly that though the land H
598           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A may not be allotted under the consolidation scheme, it still is the part of
  the holding and would be covered by Section 5 of the Act.
          6. As far as the scope of review is concerned, if a court finds that
  it has committed an error which is apparent on the face of the record
  and that error is pointed out to it in a review petition, there is nothing
B which prevents the court from correcting the error. In the judgment
  initially passed by the learned Single Judge, the court did not take into
  consideration the arguments raised that this portion ofland was 'chakout'
  and therefore, was not part of the consolidation scheme. Therefore, the
  learned Single Judge was justified in reconsidering the matter.
 c           7. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, we may refer
      to the provisions of Section 5 (c) of the Act, which read as follows:
            "5(c) notwithstanding anything contained in the U.P. Zamindari
            Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, no tenure-holder, except
            with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer,
 D          Consolidation, previously obtained shall-
               (i) use his holding or any part thereof for purposes not connected
                  with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including,
                  pisciculture and poultry farming; or
               (ii) transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange any part of his
 E                 holding in the consolidation area.
            Provided that a tenure-holder may continue to use his holding, or
            any part thereof, for any purpose for which it was in use prior to
            the date specified in the notification issued under sub-section (2)
            of Section 4."
 F
          8. The purpose of a consolidation scheme is to provide consolidation
   of agricultural holdings. Abadi land, groves etc. are kept outside the
   scope of consolidation scheme. The:,' ::innot be re-allocated or re-allotted
   to any other person. Therefore, strictly speaking, they are not subject
   matter of the consolidation scheme. The intention of introducing Section
 G 5(c)(ii) of the Act was that ifthe land holding is subject to consolidation
   proceedings then permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation)
   is required before the same is transferred. This is so because if the land,
   which is subject matter of consolidation proceedings, is sold or permitted
   to be transferred during consolidation proceedings, it could affect the
   entire consolidation scheme. However, if the land is not subject matter
 H
    SURAJ PAL (D) THR. LR. v. RAM MANORATH & ORS.                             599
                   [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.)

of the consolidation scheme, though it may be part of the holding of the A
tenure holder, then no permission is required. Admittedly, the suit property
was "Chakout" and outside the purview of the consolidation scheme
inasmuch as its value could not be taken into consideration while framing
the scheme and it could not be allocated or allotted to any other person.
      9. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal      B
and the same is dismissed.
       10. Status quo, granted vide order dated 07 .09.2007 and continued
vide order dated 19.07.2013, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if
any, stand(s) disposed of.


Ankit Gyan                                                Appeal dismissed.