SUPREME COURT: CONSOLIDATION OFFICER CANNOT TAKE AWAY OWNERSHIP OF TENURE HOLDER ABD GRANT IT TO ANOTHER | UP CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT

The Supreme Court in the case Prashant Singh And Ors. ETC. Versus Meena And Ors. Etc. observed concerning the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 wherein the court held that the Consolidation Officer is not vested with the power to take away the vested title of a tenure holder and grant ownership to some other person in the property.

- 

The bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice P.S. Narasimha in the case emphasized the duty of the Consolidation Officer as it is stated under the 1953 Act stating that 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 and not to take away the vested title of a tenure holder as no such power is being conferred upon a Consolidation Officer to take away the vested title of a tenure holder.

The Judgement authored by Justice Surya Kant stated that the power as stated under Section 49 of the 1953 Act cannot be exercised to take away the vested title of a tenure holder and no such jurisdiction is conferred upon a Consolidation Officer or any other Authority under the 1953 Act.

It has been stated under section 49 of the 1953 Act that it contemplates a 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 before the court.

Further, the court clarified that the 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.

Adding to it, the court stated that suspension of jurisdiction of these Courts through the non-obstante provision is only with regards to the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders.