Munni Lal vs D.D.C.
2024 Latest Caselaw 15604 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Munni Lal vs D.D.C. on 6 May, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:79857
 
Reserved on 4.4.2024
 
Delivered on 6.5.2024
 

 

 
Court No. - 48 
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 6556 of 1984
 

 
Petitioner :- Munni Lal
 
Respondent :- D.D.C.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Rai,Dr Vinod K Rai,Radhey Shyam Dwivedi,S.Rai,U.K. Rai,V.K. Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Jitan Tewari,Anwar Khan,Dhananjai Misra,Harish Chandra Dwivedi,Jeetan Tiwari,S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
 

1. Heard Dr. Vinod K Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harish Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.2/2.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot No. 499Ba area 1 bigha 10 biswa 8 dhur situated in Village Makanpur, Pargana Bhadohi, District Varanasi. In the basic year entry khatauni, the afoementioned plot was recorded in the name of Udit Narayan by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 9.12.1965. The name of Sarabjeet and Lalta were also recorded as co-tenure holders over the land in dispute and area of plot No. 499/2 was ordered to be corrected as 12 biswa and area of plot No. 499/3 was ordered to be corrected as 12 biswa 10 dhur. On the basis of the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 9.12.1965, C.H. Form 11 was accordingly prepared. The aforementioned plot was chak out hence in C.H. Form 23 those plots were recorded in the name of Udit Narayn, Sarabjeet and Lalta. The bhoomidhari sanad was accordingly issued in favour of Udit Narayan, Sarabjeet and Lalta. On the basis of the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 4.10.1968, the nature of the land was recorded as bhoomidhari instead of sirdari. Sarabjeet died accordingly name of his son Paras Nath was recorded by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 20.6.1968. Udit Narayan, Paras Nath and Lalta transferred the aforementioned plot to petitioner through sale deed accordingly name of petitioner was recorded as bhoomidhar after expunging the name of Udit Narayan and others vide order dated 14.10.1968. Respondent no.2, Jay Murat filed an objection on 20.8.1974 under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act along with an application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay of about 9 years claiming himself to be sole bhoomidhar of the plot in question, as such, it has been prayed that name of petitioner be expunged from the revenue records. The date of the knowledge in the application for condonation of delay mentioned by respondent no.2 was 16.8.1974. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.8.1974 dismissed the aforementioned objection filed by respondent no.2. An appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent no.2 against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 28.8.1974 which was registered as appeal No. 8704. Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 25.2.1975 dismissed the appeal affirming the order of Consolidation Officer by which the objection filed by respondent no.2 was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Respondent no.2 filed revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was registered as revision No. 383/1072/12902. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 25.1.1984 allowed the revision set aside the appellate order dated 25.2.1975, order of Consolidation Officer dated 28.8.1974 and remitted the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the title objection afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in accordance with law hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner challenging the impugned orders dated 25.1.1984 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, 25.2.1975 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation and 28.8.1974 passed by Consolidation Officer.

3. This Court vide order dated 28.9.1984 admitted the writ petition and granted interim order staying the operation of the impugned revisional order dated 25.1.1984 passed by respondent no.1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 28.9.1984, passed by this Court parties have exchanged their pleadings.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that publication under Section 9 of U.P.C.H. Act was made on 17.2.1966 but the title objection under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has been filed by respondent no.2 on 20.8.1974, as such, the tile objection was rightly rejected by Consolidation Officer on the ground of limitation. He further submitted that chak holders were given possession on 30.7.1967, as such, filing of title objection at such a belated stage cannot be entertained by the consolidation authorities. He further submitted that order of Consolidation Officer has rightly been maintained by Settlement Officer Consolidation which requires no interference by this Court. He further submitted that even on merit, the claim of respondent no.2 cannot be entertained for recording him as bhoomidhar of the plot in question, as such, the basic year entry of the plot in question cannot be further scrutinized by affirming the impugned revision order to decide the title objection afresh so that litigation may go on for another 50 years. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his argument which are as follows:- 2013 ACJ, 179 (Sharda Devi Vs. Additional District Judge), 2018 ACJ, 2533 (Mohd. Sahid and Others Vs. Razia Khanam, 1974 unreported Revenue Cases 678 (Murlidhar Tiwari Vs. D.D.C.).

6. On the other hand, Mr. Harish Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2/2 submitted that under the impugned revisional order, the matter has been remanded back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the title objection of respondent no.2 on merit, as such, writ petition cannot be entertained against their remand order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation directing the Consolidation Officer to decide the title objection on merit. He further submitted that according to the provisions contained under Section 53-B of U.P.C.H. Act, provisions of Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable in the consolidation proceeding, as such, there was no infirmity in the impugned order passed by respondent no.1, Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the title objection on merit. He further submitted that question of merit as well as entitlement of the parties to the plot in question shall be decided by Consolidation Officer after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence in accordance with law, as such, merit question cannot be gone into while considering the delay condonation matter by the consolidation authorities. He submitted that no interference is required and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that title objection under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act filed by respondent no.2 along with the prayer for condonation of delay of about 9 years has been dismissed by Consolidation Officer on the ground of limitation vide order dated 28.8.1974 and the order of Consolidation Officer was maintained in appeal but in revision, the order of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Consolidation Officer were set aside and matter was remanded back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the title objection afresh on merit. There is also no dispute about the fact that remand order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation has been stayed by this court under interim order dated 28.9.1984.

9. It is relevant to mention that publication under Section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act took place in the Village on 17.2.1966 and publication under Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act took place on 13.2.1967 accordingly delivery of possession took place on 30.6.1967 but the title objection under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act against the basic year entry was filed by respondent no.2 on 20.8.1974, as such, Consolidation Officer has rejected the title objection as barred by limitation and title appeal filed by respondent no.2 was also dismissed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

10. Under the U.P.C.H. Act, the procedure has been prescribed for filing the title objection, title appeal as well as title revision with check and balance, as such, it is not appropriate and proper to file title objection at any stage of the consolidation operation. The filing of title objection after about 9 years without explaining the sufficient cause cannot be entertained by the consolidation authorities. There is no dispute that Section 53-B of U.P.C.H. Act provides for applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act in respect to application, appeal and revision under U.P.C.H. Act but it does not mean that tenure holder can initiate proceeding according to his wish and convenience.

11. The Village was notified under consolidation operation in 1966, as such, the basic year entry cannot be examined on the highly time barred title objection filed by respondent no.2 on 20.8.1974.

12. The claim of respondent no.2 cannot be entertained even on merit in view of the division of khata between Shivpal and Shivbodh, long standing entry of petitioner's vendor, the grant of bhumidhari sanad in favour of petitioner's vendor and the orders passed by consolidation authorities for recording the name of petitioners on the basis of sale deed which has not been challenged or cancelled in any proceeding.

13. The Deputy Director of Consolidation without considering the inordinate delay in filing the title objection by respondent no.2 in proper manner as well as the finding of fact recorded by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation has allowed the revision in casual manner and remanded the matter back before Consolidation Officer to decide the title objection on merit after granting benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act in filing title objection which is not proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction, as such, revisional order dated 25.1.1984 cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

14. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in 2018 Alld Civil Journal 2533 Mohd. Sahid and Others Vs. Raziya Khanam (D) through LRs and another has maintained order of this Court refusing condonation of delay of 349 days in filing civil appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code and in the instant matter there is inordinate delay of 8 years in filing title objection under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act against basic year entry of the plot in question.

15. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order dated 25.1.1984 passed by respondent no.1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.

16.Writ petition stands allowed. The basic year entry of the plot in question is hereby maintained.

17. No order as to cost.

Order Date :- 6.5.2024

Vandana Y./PS*