Allahabad High Court
Bheem Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 16 May, 2023
Bench: Chandra Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:106451
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1428 of 2023
Petitioner :- Bheem Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Srivastav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 15.02.2023 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation deciding the substitution application during pendency of the title revision.
3. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section-12 of the U.P.C.H.Act was initiated during consolidation operation in respect to the holdings of Karnail Singh. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.11.2019 ordered to record the name of Kripal Singh son of Ran Singh, Ajit Singh and Bhim Singh son of Ran Singh, Bachan Singh, Naval Singh, Ashved Singh sons of Karm Singh on the basis of unregistered will deed dated 15.11.1995, the other claims were rejected by Consolidation Officer. Appeals filed by contesting respondents under Section 11 of U.P.C.H. Act were dismissed vide order dated 17.09.2021. Against the appellate order dated 17.09.2021 Revision No.392 of 2021 filed by respondent No.3 under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act is pending. During pendency of the revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation opposite party No.7 Ajit Singh expired and three sets of substitution applications were filed, one application dated 29.07.2922 was filed by revisionist with the prayer to substitute his sons and note to be made that widow is already on record of the revision. Another application dated 14.10.2022 was filed by Smt. Raj Dulari widow of Ajit Singh that on the basis of will deed dated 20.11.2018 Gaurav Chaudhary (son) and Smt. Gita Chaudhary (daughter-in-law) be substituted. Third application dated 30.09.2022 was filed by Bheem Singh to substitute Rani and Vishal on the basis of will deed executed on 20.11.2018. Deputy Director of Consolidation heard the substitution matter and vide order dated 14.10.2022 impleaded all the three sets of claimants in the revision for the purposes of the prosecution of the revision. Hence this writ petition.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that two sets of substitution applications have been filed in respect to the deceased Ajit Singh during the pendency of the revision. He further submitted that substitution applications have been decided in arbitrary manner without considering the will deed alleged to be executed by the deceased. He further submitted that order passed on the substitution applications be set aside and the applications be considered afresh.
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that order impugned is interlocutory in nature and no interference is required. He further submitted that applications filed for substitution have been allowed as such no injury will be caused to any of the party.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. There is no dispute bout the fact that title revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act is pending before revisional court and during pendency of the revision, substitution applications have been decided by the impugned order.
8. Since the substitution matter has been disposed of by the impugned order and the revision is pending, as such interest of justice requires that pending revision should be decided on merit.
9. This Court in the case reported in 2019 (144) RD 486 Jeoraji Vs. C.R.O. and another has held that substitution matter is limited to substitute the legal heirs during pendency of the proceeding and order substituting the legal heirs do not decide the inter-se rights of the parties. Paragraph Nos.5, 6 and 7 of the judgment rendered in Jeoraji (Supra) are relevant which are as under:-
"5. From the facts stated above, it is evident that the interest of Sureman as pleaded by Smt. Ramkali was adverse to the interest of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Further, the failure of the petitioner to file a copy of the Will during the proceedings in substitution have been explained by the petitioner. The original Will had been filed in mutation proceedings. The photocopy of the Will was filed by the petitioner and proved by the affidavit filed with the photocopy of the Will. Proceedings for substituting the legal representatives of a deceased party are only to continue the litigation between the parties and any orders passed in substitution proceedings do not decide the inter se rights of the parties. The validity of the Will allegedly executed by Smt. Ramkali in favour of the petitioner could be decided in other proceedings.
6 . It would have been appropriate that the petitioner was substituted in place of Smt.Ramkali to contest the case of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The appeals against the order passed by the A.C.O. were filed by Smt. Ramkali and were allowed. Whether Smt. Ramkali was the widow of Sureman or not was a question which had to be decided by the C.R.O. while passing the final orders in the revisions filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or it could be decided while deciding the maintainability of the appeal and the merits of the claim made by Smt. Ramkali. The status of Smt. Ramkali who had filed the appeals against the order of the A.C.O. and whether Sureman had any wife by the name of Smt. Ramkali depends on the evidence produced by the parties and could not have been decided by the C.R.O. in proceedings relating to substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of Smt. Ramkali.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 10.9.1993 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Basti, i.e., respondent No. 1 in Revision Nos. 418/18/35 and 418-A/18/35 is. set aside. The Chief Revenue Officer, Basti, i.e., respondent No. 1 is directed to substitute the petitioner as the legal representative of Smt. Ramkali in Revision Nos. 418/18/35 and 418-A/18/35 and decide the said revisions after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him by either of the parties. "
10. This Court in the case reported in 2003 (95) RD 348 Smt. Prakaswati Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation Ghaziabad and others has also held that substitution in any proceeding is meant only for the purpose of disposal of that case and so far as right/title of the parties is concerned, it has to be adjudicated in the competent court in a proper proceeding as and when that question arose.
11.Considering the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, as well as ratio of law laid down in Jeoraji (supra) no interference is required against the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
12. However, revisional court is directed to decide the revision expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving opportunity of hearing both the parties.
Order Date :- 16.5.2023
PS*
