Allahabad High Court
Kedar And Others vs D.D.C.And Others on 5 January, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved-: 14.12.2023
Delivered-: 05.01.2024
Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:1994
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 14185 of 1986
Petitioner :- Kedar And Others
Respondent :- D.D.C.And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.S. Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- U.K. Misra,Kunal Ravi Singh,S.C.,Udai Bhanu Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This case is arising out of consolidation proceedings. In the basic year, over plot no. 421 area 1 acre 73 decimal situated at village Kodari, Pargana Bayalasi, Tehsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur, name of original petitioner's father Dallan was recorded.
2. Opposite parties no. 5 to 9 filed their objections before the Consolidation Officer that they along with the petitioners belong to a joint family and disputed land was joint family property and as such they claimed co-tenancy right in the disputed land.
3. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 23.03.1967 rejected the objections of respondents under Section 9A(2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and entries of basic year were confirmed. Relevant part of the order is quoted below -:
"उभय पक्ष की उपस्थिति में मुकदमें की सुनवाई की गयी तथा उनके द्वारा प्रस्तुत मौखिक व लिखित साक्ष्य को मिसिल पर लिया गया। उभय पक्ष की बहस सुनी गयी। वादीगण की ओर से फरीकेन का वंश वृक्ष निम्न प्रकार कहा गया है।
सरूप
रज्जन मज्जन गज्जन दल्लन
धनई लालता
वादी की ओर से बहस करते हुए विद्वान अधिवक्ता ने कहा है कि दल्लन मै मज्जन गज्जन के साथ मय वल्दियत सरूप के एक दावा वाद सं० 88 दफा 59 यू०पी० में दल्लन की जाति का था। कब्जेदार इललीगल बहत करते हुए विद्वान वकील ने कहा कि उक्त दावा में दल्लन ने मज्जन व गज्जन को सरूप का लड़का लिखा है। अतः यह प्रमाणित है कि वादीगण प्रतिवादीगण के भाई तथा वंश वृक्ष के मृतक क्रमशः भतीजे है।
उपरोक्त बहस से प्रमाणित है कि वादी गण प्रतिवादी के पिता के ही वंशज है।
जहाँ तक सह खातेदारी का प्रश्न है कि प्रतिवादी की ओर से कहा गया कि विवादित भूमि उनके द्वारा प्राप्त की गयी और वादीगण ने बतौर सरमाया खानदान की हैसियत से विवादित भूमि को प्रतिवादी द्वारा प्राप्त बताते। उसे अपने को सहखातेदार बताया वादी की ओर से दिये गये बयान से स्पष्ट होता है कि वादीगण व प्रतिवादीगण अलग अलग रहते है। ऐसी स्थिति में उभय पक्ष के संयुक्त होने तथा प्रतिवादी द्वारा सबकी ओर से बतौर मालिक के कार्य को पेश करके स्थिति निराधार है। वादी की आपत्ति व्यर्थ है।
अतः आदेश हुआ कि खाता नं० 12 स 109 से गज्जन इत्यादि की आपत्ति खारिज हो नम्बर 191/2/-02 गै०म०शा०जो० दर्ज हो वाद अमल दरामद मिसिल दाखिल दफ्तर हो।"
[emphasis supplied]
4. Contesting respondents being aggrieved by the above order filed an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, however, it was dismissed on 08.09.1967. A copy of said order is not annexed along with this writ petition. The above order was challenged at behest of the respondents by way of filing a revision petition.
5. The petitioners filed a transfer application before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur as revision petitioner was pending for many years, however, same was rejected by an order dated 12.05.1982 with a direction to parties to appear on 31.05.1982.
6. Case of petitioners is that the Revisional Authority who was at verge of his retirement has expedited the proceedings and rejected prayer of adjournment and proceeded with revision petition and decided by an ex-parte order dated 29.05.1982 whereby revision was allowed. Relevant part of the order is mentioned below-:
"उपरोक्त साक्ष्यों पर प्रकाश डालते हुए वि० अधिवक्ता ने बैनामा दिनांक 26.12.60 से यह दिखाने की कोशिश की गयी है कि इसमें दलन के बाप का नाम स्वरुप व गजन भजन के बाप का नाम अनुरूप है। बैनामा लिखाते समय दलन मौजूद थे और बाकी भाई गजन भजन पुत्र गण अनुरूप नहीं थे। और दलन की चालाकी से वल्दियत अलग अलग दर्ज करा दिया। यह भी कहा गया कि यह बैनामा की नकल है और असल के गायब होने का कोई साक्ष्य नहीं दिया।
अतः यह साक्ष्य में ग्राहय भी नहीं है। दूसरे बैनामा दिनाँक 21.1.68 में दजन पुत्र अनुरुप लिखा है इसका भी कोई अन्य साक्ष्य नहीं है। निगरानी कर्ताओं ने यह बताया है कि स्वरूप और अनुरुप एक ही व्यक्ति है। भजन के बयान में भी पिता का नाम अनुरूप लिखा है। इससे भी कोई अन्तर नहीं है। क्योंकि अनुरूप और स्वरूप एक ही व्यक्ति है यह बयान भी साक्ष्य में ग्राहय नहीं है क्योंकि भजन को तलब करके पूछताँछ नहीं की गयी। यह भी कहा गया कि निगरानी कर्ताओं ने बयान तहरीरी स्पष्ट लिखा है कि दलन अपने भाइयों में सबसे बड़े थे। अनुरूप की नकल फौती भी दाखिल है जिसके अनुसार उनकी मृत्यु दिनांक 6.3.58 को हुई है। दलन के बयान से भी स्पष्ट है कि मृत्यु के समय अनुरूप की उम्र 80 वर्ष थी। विवादित भूमि के विषय में जा बैनामा दिनांक 24.10.1905 पेश किया गया है उससे यह साबित होता है कि दलन की उम्र 4 वर्ष रही होगी। इसलिये यह स्पष्ट है कि यह बैनामा उनके बाप ने लिया था। दूसरे बैनामा दिनांक 1936 का है दलन के पिता की मृत्यु 1958 में हुई है इससे भी यह स्पष्ट है कि यह बैनामा दलन के पिता के जीवन काल में लिया था।
दलन ने यह कही नहीं कहा है कि अपने पिता से अलग होकर उन्ही ने बैनामा लिया है। इस प्रकार परिवार के संयुक्त रूप से होने से विवादित भूमि तनहा दल्लन की नहीं है। हिन्दू परिवार में कोई के संयुक्त रहने की परिकल्पना की जाती है। उपर्युक्त साक्ष्य के आधार पर निगरानी कर्ताओं का सहखातेदारी का दावा साबित है इसी कारण उत्तरवादी बहस नहीं करना चाहते थे कि अधिक से अधिक समय तक विवादित भूमि पर कब्जा बना रहे।
जैसा कि ऊपर स्पष्ट किया गया है उत्तर वादी के विद्वान अधिवक्ता को काफी समय तर्क प्रस्तुत करने के लिये दिया गया था परन्तु किसी न किसी बहाने तर्क प्रस्तुत करना नहीं चाहते थे निगरानी 1968 में दाखिल की गयी है इतनी लम्बी अवधि तक उत्तर वादियों ने कोई साक्ष्य नहीं प्रस्तुत किया। अतः उन्हें अधिक अवसर देना विलम्ब की प्रवृत्ति को प्रेरित करना है। अतः और अधिक समय देना न्याय के हित में नहीं है।
निगरानी द्वारा प्रस्तुत तर्क तथा पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्य का भली प्रकार अवलोकन किया।
निगरानी कर्ता द्वारा भरोसा की गयी अभिलेखीय साक्ष्य जिसका उल्लेख ऊपर किया गया है। यह पूर्णरूपेण स्पष्ट है कि दल्लन रज्जन व भजन सगे भाई है। और उनके पिता का नाम स्वरूप उर्फ अनुरूप है। नाम के देखने से यह स्पष्ट है कि यह सगे भाई है और एक ही पिता ने उनके नाम रखे थे। यह भी साबित होता है कि विवादित भूमि पिता की जीवन काल में अर्जित की गयी थी। परिवार में भाई के संयुक्त रहने की परिकल्पना की जाती है। विशेष रूप से पिता के जीवनकाल में इस प्रकार पत्रावली में उपलब्ध साक्ष्य से यह प्रमाणित है कि दलन परिवार के कर्ता थे और विवादित भूमि परिवार के संयुक्त कोष से दलन के पिता के जीवन काल में अर्जित की गयी अतः इसमें सभी भाई सहखातेदार होंगे।
अतः निगरानी स्वीकार की जाती है और अधीनस्थ न्यायालय के आदेश निरस्त किये जाये है। दलन के साथ भजन रजन गजन सहखातेदार माने जायेंगे। और उनके सभी मृतकों के उत्तराधिकारियों के अंश निम्नवत निर्धारित किया जाता है।
भूमिधर केदार और राम सूरत ¼ हिस्सा बराबर रेजन ¼ दुखी गुदरी पुत्रगण गज्जन ¼ बहिस्सा बराबर धनई लालता पुत्रगण भजन ¼ हिस्सा बराबर"
[emphasis supplied]
7. The petitioners thereafter filed a recall application dated 31.05.1985 to recall above referred order dated 29.05.1982 which was dismissed by an order dated 04.02.1986. Meanwhile, order for 'amaldaramad parvana' was issued vide order dated 07.12.1982 by the Consolidation Officer. The above order was challenged by way of filing an appeal, which was dismissed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 04.04.1985. A revision was also filed by petitioner against it which was dismissed by order dated 04.02.1986. Relevant part of order dated 31.05.1985 is reproduced below-:
"बन्दोबस्त अधिकारी चकबन्दी के आदेश दिनांक 4.4.85 के विरुद्ध निगरानी प्रस्तुत करने का जहाँ तक प्रश्न है सहायक संचालक चकबन्दी के आदेश दिनांक 29.5.82 के परिचालन में अभिलेखों में अमलदरामद किया गया था जिसके विरुद्ध निगरानी कर्ता ने अपील प्रस्तुत किया और उक्त अपील 4-4-83 को निरस्त कर दी गयी। उसी के विरुद्ध निगरानी प्रस्तुत की गयी है। निगरानी कर्ता का कथन है कि मामला नियम 109 अ का ही है जिसमें उसके पक्ष को सुना नहीं गया है। व०अ०च० ने अपने आदेश में स्पष्ट रूप से यह भी लिखा है कि यदि तजवीजसानी के केदार नाथ के पक्ष में आदेश पारित होता है तो तदनुसार अभिलेखों में अमल दरामद कर दी जाएगी निगरानीकर्ता के कथनानुसार यदि मामला 109अ नियम का है तो नियम 109 की कार्यवाही में अपील का आदेश अन्तिम होता है और उसके विरुद्ध निगरानी ग्राहय नहीं होती है। चूंकि आदेश 29.5.82 के विरुद्ध तजवीजसानी निरस्त की जा चुकी है। अतएव उसकी निगरानी स्वतः उसके कथन के विपरीत हो जाती है। और उसे स्वीकार करने का कोई औचित्य नहीं रह जाता है।
उपरोक्त विवेचना के आधार पर निगरानी तथा तजवीजसानी दोनो निरस्त की जाती है।"
[emphasis supplied]
8. Aforesaid orders dated 29.05.1982 and 04.02.1986 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation are under challenge before this Court.
9. Sri A.S. Rai, learned Advocate for petitioners has submitted that Revisional Authority has passed impugned orders in haste. The Authority has not permitted the petitioners to take adjournment on reasonable grounds and by an ex-parte impugned order dated 29.05.1982 has erroneously allowed revision filed by the respondents and further erroneously dismissed the restoration application and a revision petition filed by petitioner arising out of 'amaldaramad' proceedings which has greatly prejudiced the petitioners.
10. Learned Advocate has referred averments made in paragraph nos. 7 to 17 -:
"7. That having seen the long pendency of their case, the petitioners got their transfer application rejected on 12.05.82 by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation and in the said transfer proceedings, the petitioners were ordered to appear before the opposite party no.2 on 31.5.82 for final hearing of their case on merit.
8. That to the greatest surprise of the petitioners, without any information, notice or knowledge to them 20.5.82 was scribed as date fixed for hearing.
9. That anyhow the petitioners came to know the subsequent fixed date i.e. 20.5.82 and their counsel moved an adjournment application on 20.5.82 on the ground that in the transfer proceedings, the superior Court had already fixed 31.5.82 as such the hearing of the revision may be deferred till 31.5.82. The recital in the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the application of the petitioners was filed on 22.5.82 is wrong.
10. That having entertained the petitioners, aforesaid adjournment application, the opposite party no.2 had illegally proceeded for final hearing and finally heard the argument on merits on behalf of the contesting opposite parties on 20.5.82. He had further ordered that written arguments if any may be filed by the petitioners till 28.5.82.
11. That since the opposite party no.2 was to retire on 31.05.82 as such he was bent upon final disposal of the revision against the petitioners (though the petitioners came to know this fact itself on 31.5.82) as such they moved their application before the D.D.C. for summoning their file from the Court of the opposite party no.2. On this, the District D.D.C. had ordered the opposite party no.2 for not, proceedings for final hearing of the revision in question, and also not to pass any order therein.
12. That on 28.5.82 the petitioners' counsel was seriously ill. There were voluminous additional evidence which were also required to be filed on behalf of the petitioners. On these grounds, the petitioners' counsel had moved the petitioners second adjournment application on 28.5.82.
13. That on 28.5.82 the opposite party no.2 did not sit in Court as such there was no Court work on that day nor any order could be passed on the petitioners' adjournment application dated 28.5.82.
14. That on 28.5.82, subsequently in the evening the Reader of the Court told the petitioners' counsel that since the Court of the opposite party no.2 did not sit on 28.5.82 as such your application had been sent for orders on the residence of opposite party no.2.
15. That in these circumstances, on 28.5.82 when no orders were possible then being helpless the petitioners' counsel Sri S.N. Srivastava, Advocate had asked the petitioners to come on 31.5.82 as 30.5.82 was Sunday.
16. That on 31.5.82 when the petitioners went Court of the opposite party no.2 then they surprisingly came to know that by means of readymade judgment the revision in question had already been ex-parte allowed and restoration application was also rejected on 29.5.82 without hearing them, behind their back.
17. That without losing any further time, immediately on 31.5.82, the petitioners had moved their restoration application before O.P. No.2."
11. Learned Advocate has further submitted that impugned order was bereft of reasoning and has allowed revision petition on vague grounds being not supported by any material on record.
12. Learned Advocate for petitioners has placed reliance upon following judgements-:
"1. 2000 All L.J. 3031 : State Bank of India vs. Km. Chandra Govindji
2. 2022 AIR CC 2178 (All) : Jhinka Devi vs. State of U.P.
3. AIR 1973 Allahabad 411 : Dilawar Singh vs. The Gram Samaj and others"
13. Per contra, Sri Udai Bhanu Singh, learned Advocate for respondents has submitted that petitioners have intentionally not appeared before Revisional Authority despite transfer application filed by petitioners was rejected.
14. Learned Advocate has further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered evidence on record and returned a specific finding that land in dispute was acquired by sale deed executed during lifetime of father Dallan and for that money from nucleus of joint family was used, therefore, all were co-sharers. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance upon following judgments-:
"1. 1965 AIR SC 289 : K.V. Narayanswami Iyer vs. K.V. Ramakrishna Iyer and others
2. Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:219234-DB Smt. Jyoti Verma vs. Prashant Kumar Verma
3. 2020 (147) RD 691 : Asharfi and others. vs. D.D.C. and others"
15. Learned counsel has referred reply to referred paragraphs of writ petition as mentioned in counter affidavit. Relevant part of counter affidavit is referred hereinafter -:
"9. That the contents of paragraph 7 of the writ petition as stated are wholly false and are denied. The transfer application was rejected on 12-5-1982 on a finding that no case for transfer is made out. It is wholly false and incorrect to say that the District Deputy Director of Consolidation had ordered the parties to appear on 31-5-1982 for hearing. The fact is that manipulation has been done on behalf of the petitioners to change the date fixed for hearing. In fact a finding has been recorded by opposite party no.1 that manipulation has been done to change the date to 31-5-1982. The fact is that during the pendency of the application for transfer several dates were fixed before the opposite party no.2 in the revision as there was no stay order. On such date before opposite party no.2 as 20.5.1982. when the counsel for the opposite party appeared and filed an application requesting the opposite party no.2 in the presence of the petitioners and counsel to hear the revision on the same day as the transfer application had already been rejected on 12-5-1982. In this connection it is relevant to add that on the various dates fixed for hearing before opposite party no.2 the parties and their counsels invariably appeared before the opposite party no.2. In fact one of the grounds for transfer in the second application was that the presiding officer was unnecessarily giving dates in the revision instead of concluding hearing. This prompted the counsel for the opposite party to request the opposite party no.2 to hear the argument of 20.5.1982. When both the parties were present before the court though the direction for appearance was 21.5.1982. On the request of the counsel for the contesting opposite parties the opposite party no.2 heard the arguments for the opposite parties and on the written application of the petitioner the opposite party no.2 adjourned the case for 28.5.1982 to enable the petitioner's counsel to file evidence and also written argument before that date. A true copy of the application of the contesting opposite parties and the order of the revisional authority are filed as ANNEXURE CA-1 to this Counter affidavit. Allegations to the contrary in the paragraph under reply are wholly false and are emphatically denied. And on the application for adjournment filed by the petitioner for time to file documents and for arguments the opposite party no.2 after hearing the counsel for the opposite parties passed the following order:-
"28.5.82 ke pahle bahas de sakate hain 28.5.82 adesh ke liye nirdharit.
Sd. S. D. 28.5.82."
10. That the contents of paragraph 3 of the writ petition are denied as incorrect. As stated above the dates in the revisional courts were being regularly fixed 20.5.82 was one such date for hearing for revision before opposite party no.2. The petitioner had full knowledge of the date 20.5.1982 in the revision and they actually appeared on 20.5.1982 before the opposite party no.2. when, as stated above after hearing the arguments of contesting opposite parties the petitioners applied on 20.5.1982 for adjournment to produce documents and to conclude arguments. The allegations in the paragraph under 04 reply are wholly false and incorrect as is clear on a perusal of the application dated 20-5-1982 filed before the opposite party no.2 for adjournment. true copy of the petitioners application dated 20-5-1982 is filed herewith as ANNEXURE CA-2 to this Counter Affidavit. It is relevant to add that this application was filed by the petitioners after they succeeded in manipulating the date of appearance of the parties in the order dated 12-5-1982 of the district Deputy director of Consolidation. In this connection it is also relevant to add that prayer for adducing evidence and for adjournment for that purpose on that day after arguments of the contesting opposite parties were concluded was nothing but a malafide action with ulterior motive as the petitioners had had ample time to adduce evidence in revision as the revision had been pending since 1967. and the petitioners had fullest opportunity of adducing whatever evidence they chose to. The petitioners have come to this court with unclean hands and with false allegations swearing in the affid vit falsely knowing the allegations to be false and have thus totally disentitled themselves for any relief by this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 9 of the writ petition it is stated that correct facts have already been stated above in this counter affidavit which are reiterated correct and the allegations to the contrary in the paragraph under reply are denied incorrect. The mention of date 22.5.1982 in the impugned order is correct. That in fact is the date when the petitioners made an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation (PRASHAK) with the third attempt to seek a transfer of the revision from the Court of the opposite party no.2. Allegations to the contrary once again have bean sworn on behalf of the petitioners knowing them to be false. Besides there was no justification for seeking adjournment after 31.5.1982 when admittedly the petitioners were granted time on their own application dated 20.5.1982 till 28.5.1982. This further is proof of the malafide action of the petitioners."
16. Heard learned Advocates for parties and perused the record.
17. In the present case, Revisional Authority has interfered with a concurrent finding returned by the Consolidation Officer and upheld by the Appellate Authority. The petitioners have taken a very specific averment in the petition that Revisional Authority has acted in haste and erroneously passed an ex-parte impugned order. A request for adjournment made on behalf of petitioners was rejected. The petitioners in this regard have made very specific details which have already been extracted in the earlier paragraphs of this judgement.
18. Above referred averments are replied by respondents in their counter affidavit that after transfer application was rejected, case was adjourned on request of petitioners and fixed for 28.05.1982 to enable the petitioners' counsel to file evidence as well as written arguments before said date. However, it was not filed, therefore, it was a fault of petitioner and not of the Authority.
19. It is not in dispute that as referred above, transfer application filed by petitioners was rejected on 12.05.1982 and it was directed that parties shall appear before the Revisional Authority on 31.05.1982, however, matter came up on 20.05.1982 though a request was made by petitioner to put it on 31.05.1982 as directed. However, no adjournment was granted and arguments were heard on merit on behalf of contesting respondents. It was directed that before 28.05.1982, written submissions could be filed and matter was put for order on 28.05.1982. Later on, on 28.05.1982, since counsel for petitioners was ill, therefore, an adjournment was sought but counsel was not available on that date and further on 29.05.1982, impugned order was passed and belated recall application was also rejected.
20. From the above, it would be clear that Deputy Director of Consolidation has acted in haste and revision was decided without even hearing the petitioners which has caused prejudice to him. An attempt was made by the respondent that there was manipulation in order dated 12.05.1982 whereby transfer petition was rejected and that parties were directed to appear on 31.05.1984. The later part was forged but in absence of any material to support a vague assertion, the attempt resulted in a futile exercise.
21. Section 48 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 provides that Revisional Authority has to decide case after hearing the parties. It is well settled that Authorities are not under legal obligation to grant adjournment on vague grounds however, as appeared above, even in a very short period, the Revisional Authority have decided the case after transfer application was rejected which on the face of it appears to be an incorrect approach. It is not under dispute that during pendency of transfer petition, no stay was granted but admittedly during that period, the Revisional Authority has not proceeded and after rejection of transfer petition, the Authority has decided the case on one date though an adjournment was sought.
22. Both learned Advocates have argued on merit also, however, this Court has not considered the same since Court is of the view that haste of the Revisional Authority has caused prejudice to petitioners. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment has observed that to dispose a case without proper and adequate opportunity to address arguments cannot be appreciated. (See Suresh Lataruji Ramteke V/S Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar, 2023:INSC:846)
23. In view of above, impugned orders are set aside and matter is remitted back to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide afresh. Parties shall file their written submissions, if any, within a period of 3 weeks from today and thereafter the Revisional Authority will decide the revision on basis of rival submissions and material on record within 3 months thereafter in view of factors mentioned in Section 48 of Act of 1953.
24. Writ petition is partly allowed with aforesaid observations.
Order Date :- January 05, 2024
Nirmal Sinha
[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]
