Allahabad High Court
Halki vs D.D.C. And Others on 20 December, 2022
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 22.11.2022
Delivered on 20.12.2022
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5595 of 1982
Petitioner :- Halki
Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- L.S. Srivastava,Birendra Prasad Maurya,N.K. Misra,Neeraj Tripathi,Rafeek Ahmad Khan,Ram Kishore Pandey,Sanjay Srivastava,Sanjay Tripathi,Suresh Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Arimardan Singh,Deepak Saxena,Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi,Kamleshwar Singh
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Kamleshwar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of judgement and order dated 23.2.1982 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hamirpur and judgement and order dated 22.4.19981 passed by Consolidation Officer, Hamirpur.
The brief facts of the petition are that in the basic year Khatauni, land in dispute was recorded in the name of petitioner, Smt. Halki, w/o Dayaram. Smt. Halki, w/o Maniram, filed objection under Section 9 A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act stating that in the basic year entry, her husband's name has wrongly been recorded as Dayaram, when she is wife of Maniram, who is younger brother of Dayaram. She prayed that revenue entry may be corrected accordingly. Consolidation Officer rejected her objection vide order dated 22.4.1981. Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed her appeal by the order dated 22.10.1981 holding that Halki is wife of Maniram. Respondent no.4, Sukhrani, filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been set aside. Hence this writ petition.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4, Sukhrani @ Halki, w/o Dayaram, it has been stated that respondent no.4 was granted agricultural lease on 03.01.1954 regarding plot nos. 109, 110, 111 and 112 and Pradhan of the village issued Z.A. Form No. 58 under Rule 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules in her favour. On 23.1.1954, the Assistant Collector First Class, Mahoba, approved the lease granted to the respondent no.4 and her name was recorded in Khatauni and she was delivered possession of the lease land. The aforesaid lease was never challenged by anyone and is still in existence. Maniram was married to Pyari Bahu, but only to grab the lease land of the respondent no.4, he got mentioned his wife's name as Halki in the Family Register. In the electoral roll, the name of wife of Maniram was mentioned as Pyari Bahu. The petitioner had filed suit no.648 of 1965, under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act claiming Sirdari rights over the disputed land, which was dismissed and while second appeal against the same was pending, consolidation proceedings were notified hence the proceedings before civil court abated. Petitioner, who is wife of Maniram, i.e., Pyari Bahu, filed objection before the Consolidation Officer in the name of Halki under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act claiming that lease was granted to her, but Pradhan illegally recorded her husband's name incorrectely as Dayaram in place of Maniram. It has been stated that the orders passed by respondent nos.1 and 3 are in accordance with law and call for no interference.
In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that there is no alias name of respondent no.4, Sukhrani. It has wrongly been mentioned that name of respondent no.4 is Sukhrani @ Halki Bahu, which was not the case of the respondent no.4 before the court below. The lease was granted in favour of petitioner, Halki, wife of Dayaram. Dayaram was elder brother of Maniram and Karta of the family.
After hearing the rival contentions and going through the material on record, this Court finds that the objection under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act was preferred by petitioner, who claims her name to be Halki, wife of Maniram. Respondent no.4 claims her name as Halki @ Sukhrani, wife of Dayaram. Before the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner was examined as PW-1 wherein she stated that she is wife of Maniram and lease was granted in her favour, but by mistake name of Dayaram, who was elder brother of her husband, was mentioned in lease deed. Dayaram, being Karta of the family, had gone to get the copy of lease and he got his name mentioned in place of Maniram. Before the Consolidation Officer statement of PW-2, Naththu was recorded. Naththu is stated to be a member of Land Management Committee. He proved that lease was executed in favour of the petitioner. The court has found that Karwahi Register of the grant of lease to the petitioner was not produced before the Consolidation Officer nor the Pradhan, nor any other member of the Land Management Committee was produced as witness. PW-3 also deposed in favour of petitioner. The trial court found that in the copy of Pariwar Register 1960-61 of House No.132/49, the name of wife of Maniram is mentioned as Halki Bai. In the copy of voter list of 1980, name of wife of Maniram on House No. 94 is mentioned as Pyari Bahu. The case no. 16 was filed in the name of Pyari Bahu. In another Pariwar Register name of wife of Dayaram is mentioned as Sukhrani and in voter list of 1964 also name of Sukhrani is mentioned as wife of Dayaram. The trial court has found that from the oral and documentary evidence on record one name of the petitioner is Halki Bai and other name is Pyari Bahu. Likewise one name of contesting respondent no.4 is Halki and other name is Sukhrani. The Consolidation Officer found that the lease was granted by Gram Sabha in favour of respondent no.4 and held that the petitioner has failed to prove her case.
Settlement Officer of Consolidation reversed the judgment of the trial court on the ground that there is evidence on record that the name of wife of Maniram was Halki Bai. It further found that the wife of Dayaram was never named as Halki or Pyari Bahu. It has found that in the electoral roll of 1980, Pyari Bahu, wife of Maniram is recorded and this Pyari Bahu is recorded as Halki Bai in Kutumbh Register and both are the same person. Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the judgement of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and upheld the judgement of Consolidation Officer. It has found that Halki @ Sukhrani was the real lease holder and wife of Dayaram.
It appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer and ignoring the entry made in Kutumbh Register as well as voter list showing Sukhrani, respondent no.4 as wife of Dayaram has passed the order against the petitioner. There is presumption of correctness in favour of public documents unless proved otherwise. Entries in Kutumbh Register are made according to U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Kutumbh Registers) Rules, 1970 and unless set aside in appeal under Rule 6(A) the same are valid and binding. The petitioner is wife of Maniram and Dayaram by way of manipulation got his name mentioned in the lease deed as husband of Halki in the lease deed which was not granted in the name of Halki @ Sukhrani. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has found that in the copy of Family Register of 1960-61 name of Dayaram is recorded as husband of Sukhrani and also in the voter list of 1964, but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that the second name of Halki Bai is Pyari Bahu and one name of revisionist and respondent no.4 was Halki and second name was Sukhrani. Oral evidence lead by the petitioner also proved her case. The respondent no.4 did not produced any evidence in support of her case.
In view of the above consideration, the orders passed by Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Condonation are hereby quashed and the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation is upheld.
The writ petition is allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 20.12.2022
Ruchi Agrahari
