Smt. Saghira vs D.D.C. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 19832 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:152404
 
Judgment Reserved on 25.7.2023
 
Delivered on  31. 7. 2023.  
 

 
Court No. - 48 
 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 11339 of 1981 
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Saghira 
 
Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others 
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Haidar Husain,Iqbal Ahmad 
 
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,N. Mohan,S. Nandan,Udayan Nandan 
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri Shree Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for respondents.

2. Facts of the present case as curled out of the writ petition are as follows:

(i) The dispute is arising out of a proceedings under Section 9 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1953').

(ii) Dispute relates to two Khatas one bearing No.223, situated in Village- Pachrukhiya Tappa, wherein in the basic year, name of Hamid, Mahmood and Smt. Saitul were recorded. The other Khata bearing No. 215, is situated in Village- Sahrauna, wherein in the basic year, name of the original petitioner i.e Smt. Saghira, was recorded.

(iii) Original petitioner has filed an objection only in respect of Khata No.223 of village Pachrukhiya Tappa, that she is the widow of Zainuddin, and her name be entered in place of Smt. Saitul, recorded wrongly. In respect of other Khata No.215, Smt. Saitul, original respondent no.3, filed an objection alleging that she is mother of Zainuddin and Smt. Saghira has no concern being widow of another person and after death of her husband she remarried with a person namely, Ismail of village-Ganeshpur, and further that her son never got married to Smt. Saghira.

3. Two cases were considered by two independent Consolidation Officers having separate jurisdiction.

4. After the death of Zainuddin, original respondent no.3 (Smt. Saitul) reported that she is mother of Zainuddin and last recorded tenant. An objection was filed to it by the original petitioner (Smt. Saghira) and it was ordered to record her name in place of Zainuddin.

5. Against the said order, a reference was made by the original respondent no.3 (Smt. Saitul) before the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur which was dismissed vide order dated 20.6.1966.

6. Original petitioner (Smt. Saghira), thereafter filed a suit for declaration under Section 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1950'), but the same was dismissed vide order dated 22.8.1967. However, the appeal filed thereof by the original petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur was allowed vide order dated 21.8.1968 and it was declared that the original petitioner was widow of Zainuddin and she has not remarried and therefore, had succeeded the tenancy of her husband.

7. The original contesting respondent no. 3 preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 29.7.1969 remanded the matter only on a limited issue of possession and the other issues such as that original petitioner was wife of Zainuddin and that she never remarried after death of her husband, were not disturbed.

8. On remand, Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur vide order dated 22.3.1971, decided the issue of possession, and held that original petitioner (Smt. Saghira) was in possession of the disputed land being a Sirdar.

9. Aforesaid order was challenged by way of filing a second appeal. However, since consolidation proceedings commenced, proceedings of second appeal were abated vide order dated 20.10.1975.

10. In these circumstances, two separate objections were filed before the Consolidation Officer during consolidation proceedings before two Consolidation Officers having jurisdiction in the matter.

11. Consolidation Officer dealing with the case in respect of Khata No.223 of Village Pachrukhiya Tappa, vide order dated 30.6.1975 allowed the objection filed by original petitioner (Smt. Saghira), whereas the Consolidation Officer dealing with other Khata No. 215 of Village-Sahrauna, allowed the objections filed by original respondent no.3(Smt. Saitul) vide order dated 16.11.1976.

12. Both the above referred orders were challenged by the aggrieved parties by way of filing independent appeals before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Both the appeals were heard together and decided by a common order dated 1.8.1979 whereby the appeal filed by original respondent no.3 (Smt. Saitul) was dismissed whereas the appeal filed by original petitioner (Smt. Saghira) was allowed.

13. Resultantly, the original petitioner (Smt. Saghira) became co-tenant of both the Gatas along with original respondent no.3 (Smt. Saitul).

14. The original Respondent no.3 (Smt. Saitul) being aggrieved by the orders referred above, filed a revision petition before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The original petitioner (Smt. Saghira) had also filed a revision petition apparently on a limited issue of extent of her share in disputed property.

15. The Deputy Director of Consolidation decided both the revision petitions by a common order dated 16.6.1981 and rejected the revision petition No.275/5006/1682 filed by the original petitioner(Smt. Saghira) and allowed the revision petition bearing no. 2131/4458/1374, filed by the original respondent no.3 (Smt. Saitul). Relevant reasoning given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is reproduced hereinafter:

" और मैं इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचता हूँ कि सगीरा जैनुद्दीन निवासी ग्राम सोहरोना की विधवा हूँ जैसा कि डा० बी० कुमार के साक्ष्य तथा 1966 की मतदाता सूची से भी स्पष्ट है। इस संबंध में यह बात अवश्य है कि जैनुद्दीन की मृत्यु दिनांक 7.1.65 को हुई किन्तु सगीरा के नाम वरासत दिनाँक 24.12.64 की तिथि मे ही हो गई वास्तव में यह जल्द वाजी का नमूना है। इससे केवल यही निष्कर्ष निकलता है कि पर्यवेक्षक कानूनगो को मिलाकर वैक डेट मे वरासत का आदेश दर्ज करा लिया गया। जैनुद्दीन के दिनाँक 14.11.64 को मरने का साक्ष्य सिद्ध नही है क्योंकि वह प्रधान का प्रमाण पत्र मात्र है जिसका कोई महत्व नही है।

किन्तु साथ ही साथ मे इस निष्कर्ष पर भी पहुँचता है कि जैनुद्दीन की मृत्यु के वाद मृत्यु के वाद मु० सगीरा ने गनेशपुर के इस्माईल से पुनर विवाह कर लिया है। मेरे इस निष्कर्ष के आधार निम्नलिखित है।

1- साक्ष्य से यह स्पष्ट है कि जैनुद्दीन की मृत्यु के समय सगीरा की आयु 20,22 वर्ष की थी। यह मे सिद्ध है कि समाज के इस वर्ग में पुनर विवाह प्रचलित है यह भी सिद्ध है कि जैनुद्दीन को मरने के बाद सगीरा के ससुर सफीद और सास सैतुल दोनो से सगीरा की दुश्मनी हो गई और दोनो सगीरा को जायदाद से वंचित देखना चाहते थे। इन परिस्थितियों मे 100 प्रति० में 99 प्रति० सम्भावना इस बात की है कि युवा अवस्था मे सगीरा जैनुद्दीन के नाम को बैठकर रोती न रहे और सास ससुर की उपेक्षा ने सही वल्कि किसी अन्य व्यक्ति से व्याह कर ले।

2- सगीरा ने स्वयं अपने बयान दिनांक 11.4.67 में यह स्वीकार किया है कि वह दो वर्ष से इस्माईल के यहा रह रही है। वाद मे इस वयान को सम्मुख करण कराने पर वह इसका प्रभाव पूूर्ण खन्डन नही कर सकी, मु० इस्माईल से उसका कोई दूसरा रिश्ता भी नही बताया गया है। एक युवती स्त्री कि अनजान मर्द के घर मे पत्नि वन कर ही रह सकती है और इसलिए इससे निष्कर्ष यही निकलता है कि सगीरा ने इस्माईल से पुनरविवाह कर लिया।

3- गनेशपुर के कुटुम्ब रजिस्टर की चार नकले दाखिल की गई है जिनमे 3.3.67, 14.3.67, और 30.7.67, की तीनो नकलों मे सगीरा इस्माईल की पत्नि दर्ज है, जो चौथी नकल 1.8.99 की दाखिल की गई है वह स्पष्ट रूप से फर्जी है क्यों कि उस पर न ग्राम समाज की मुहर है और न प्रधान के हस्ताक्षर है। इससे भी सगीरा का पुनरविवाह इस्माईल के साथ सिद्ध होता है।

4- सगीरा के पुन विवाह के दो गवाह शहाबुद्दीन और यूनुस तथा निकाह के वकील मु० शरीफ पेश किए गए है। इन तीनों के साक्ष्यो पर अविश्वास करने का कोई कारण नही है। इस प्रकार विधिवत निकाह की वात सिद्ध हो जाती है। इन साक्षियों मे युनूस इस्माईल का सगा भाई है और इसिलए रिश्तेदार के रूप में उसका साक्ष्य विशेषरूप से महत्वपूर्ण है।

5- सैतुल का गवाह मु० सगीर सोहरोना का रहने वाला है और उसने भी इस बात की पुष्टि की है कि जैनुद्दीन के मरने के बाद सगीरा ने इस्माईल से पुनरविवाह कर लिया है। इस गवाह के साक्ष्य पर भी अविश्वास करने का कोई कारण नही है।

उपर्युक्त समस्त साक्ष्यों के आधार पर मैं इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचता हूँ कि मु० सगीरा जैनुद्दीन निवासी सोहरोना की विधवा अवश्य थी किन्तु उसने जैनुद्दीन की मृत्यु के बाद इस्माईल निवासी गनेशपुर से पुनर विवाह कर लिया जिससे विवादित भूमि में उसके समस्त हक समाप्त हो गए और वह जैनुद्दीन की उत्तराधिकारिणी नही है। दोनो अधीनस्थ न्यायालयों ने उसे उत्तर अधिकारीणी घोषित करके गलती की है और उनके आदेश निरस्त होने योग्य है।"

16. The original petitioner (Smt. Saghira) being aggrieved by above order has filed the present writ petition. During pendency of the writ petition, original petitioner and some of the respondents have died and their respective legal heirs are being brought on record.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer Consolidation have passed legally sustainable orders on the basis of evidence and material available and they have rightly held that original petitioner (Smt. Saghira) was the wife of Zainuddin and she has not remarried after his death. Contesting respondents have not brought on record any material document such as 'Nikahnama' to prove re-marriage of original petitioner (Smt. Saghira) as well as that oral statements of other witnesses including that of brother of original petitioner (Smt. Saghira) has denied factum of her remarriage.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the proceedings initiated under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950 has also returned a finding in favour of the original petitioner that there was no proof of her re-marriage. Learned counsel also pointed out that the proceedings before the Board of Revenue had also upheld the aforesaid findings. Learned counsel lastly submitted that reasons given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in impugned orders are based on surmises and conjectures and the authority had erroneously gave importance to a fact that the original petitioner (Smt. Saghira) has stayed with one Ismail of Village-Ganeshpur, after the death of her husband for about two years but has ignored the material fact that there was no 'Nikahnama' on record which would conclusively establish remarriage of the original petitioner (Smt. Saghira).

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court reported in Khemha Vs. D.D.C., 2005 (1) RD 603 and Ram Ajor Vs. D.D.C. & Ors, 2004 (96) RD 200.

20. Above arguments are vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the respondents who submitted that the Revisional Authority has considered the entire evidence on record in its correct perspective and returned a detail finding supported by reasons and since two lower authorities have committed an error on law as well as on fact, the Revisional Authority has rightly interfered with the said orders under the provision of Section 48 (1) of the Act of 1953.

21. Learned counsel has further submitted that the factum that original petitioner, after death of her husband has stayed with one Ismail r/o Village-Ganeshpur, for about two years, would be sufficient evidence of her remarriage. The factum of re-marriage is supported by two witnesses in their oral testimony in this regard.

22. Learned counsel further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has also rightly placed reliance on the copies of family register wherein the original petitioner was shown as wife of Ismail r/o Village-Ganeshpur.

23. Learned counsel for respondents has also submitted that earlier proceedings were abated due to commencement of consolidation proceedings, therefore, the findings given therein has no legal consequence, and has placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in Mst. Bibi Rahmani Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Harkoo Gope & Ors, AIR 1981 SC 1450. .

24. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.

25. The factual and legal aspect of the case are as follow:

(i) There is no serious dispute that Original Petitioner (Smt. Saghira) was widow of Zainuddin, a resident of Village-Sahrauna.

(ii) There was an admission by Original Petitioner (Smt. Saghira) that after death of her husband- Zainuddin, she stayed along with one Ismail of village-Ganeshpur, for about two years.

(iii) There was a dispute whether Original Petitioner (Smt. Saghira) after death of her husband (Zainuddin) had solemnized nikah with Ismail of village-Ganeshpur, since no Nikahnama was placed on record.

(iv) The Deputy Director of Consolidation has placed reliance on the following documents/entries to reach to conclusion that Original Petitioner (Smt. Saghira) lived with Ismail of Village-Ganeshpur, as her wife:-

Copy of entries made in Family Register of Village- Ganeshpur, dated: 03.03.1967, 14.03.67, and 30.07.1967.

(v) The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also taken note of following oral evidence to reach to conclusion that that Original Petitioner (Smt. Saghira) was married with Ismail of village-Ganeshpur:-

a. Sahabuddin r/o village-Ganeshpur - Witness of Nikah solemnized between Smt. Saghira and Ismail.

b. Yunus r/o village-Ganeshpur (brother of Ismail of village- Ganeshpur)- who stated that Smt. Saghira is his sister-in-law as a Nikah was solemnized between Smt. Saghira and Ismail.

c. Mohd. Sharif r/o village-Ganeshpur- Advocate in Nikah proceedings solemnized between Smt. Saghira and Ismail.

(vi) The argument of Original Petitioner (Smt. Saghira) that findings recorded in prior proceedings, which were abated would still have bearing in subsequent consolidation proceedings was rejected. (Also see: Mst. Bibi Rahmani Khatoon and others v/s Harkoo Gope and Others, AIR 1981 SC 1450)

26. The issue left for consideration is whether in absence Nikahnama, on the basis of documents referred above and oral evidence, it could be concluded that Original Petitioner (Smt. Saghira) lived with Ismail of village-Ganeshpur, as her wife (after death of her first husband- Zainuddin).

27. The Court proceeds to consider rival submissions that there was an admission of Original Petitioner (Smt. Saghira) that after death of her husband- Zainuddin, she lived with Ismail of village-Ganeshpur, for about two years. During this period she registered her name in Family Register as wife of Ismail. There is no submission that entries in this regard are forged and further that Original Petitioner (Smt. Saghira) had never taken any step for deletion/correction of such entries, therefore, for all purpose she was staying with Ismail of village-Ganeshpur, as her wife and she also declared to be his wife in public.

28. The oral evidence also goes against the Original Petitioner (Smt. Saghira) as it indicates that she had solemnized marriage with Ismail of village-Ganeshpur. Only on the ground that no Nikahnama was produced, the entire evidence (oral as well as documentary) could not be ignored. The findings returned by Deputy Director of Consolidation are supported by evidence, therefore, cannot be interfered.

29. As no other issue is pressed or argued, in view of above legal and factual position, this writ petition fails, and is accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date:31.7.2023

SB