Allahabad High Court
Chandra Pal vs The Consolidation Officer Bulandshahr ... on 7 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:82085
Court No. - 48
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 21107 of 2001
Petitioner :- Chandra Pal
Respondent :- The Consolidation Officer Bulandshahr Andothers
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Sharma,Mahesh Gautam,Namit Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Saxena,Mushir Khan,Vinod Kumar Gaur
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case that Khata No. 242 situated in Village Baroda was recorded in the name of Chandi Lal, Bhoop Singh, Sohan Lal, Ratan Lal, Chandrapal Sons of Ganga Sahai, Mohan Lal son of Sukha. The family pedigree, which is admitted to both parties is as under:-
Meru
Ganga Sahai Kurahe Sukha (died issueless)
Mohan Lal
Mahesh Ramesh Suresh
Chandi lal Bhoop Singh Sohan Lal Ratan Lal Chandra Pal
Kaluwa Jagveer
In C.H. Form 5 share of every person in respect to Khata No. 242 was mentioned as 1/6 each. Several set of objection under Section 9 A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act were filed with respect to share in Khata No. 242. Ist set of objection was filed by Mohan Lal (father of respondent no. 4,5 & 6) claiming 1/2 share as plot in question was ancestral & acquired by common ancester Meru. IInd set of objection was filed by Chandi Lal (respondent no. 7) stating the plot in dispute was acquired by his father Ganga Sahai as such he is entitled to 1/5 share and name of Mohan Lal is liable to be expunged. IIIrd set of objection was filed by Chandrapal (Petitioner) stating that Bhoop Singh had executed a sale deed in his favour in respect to plot no. 315 area 10 Biswa as such name of Bhoop Singh be expunged. On the basis of objection of the parties following four issues were framed:-
(i) whether name of Mohan Lal was recorded in fraudulent manner in the disputed plots?
(ii) whether disputed plots are ancestral?
(iii) what is share of the parties?
(iv) whether Chandrapal is exclusive bhumidhar of Plot No. 315 on the basis of sale-deed?
Parties have adduced evidence in support of their cases. Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties and considering the evidences on record vide order dated 15.11.1988 allowed the objection of Mohan Lal and Chandilal, but rejected the objection of Chandrapal. The Consolidation Officer ordered for division of share of Khata No. 242 in following manner:-
(i) Chandi Lal - 1/6
(ii) Sohan Lal - 1/6
(iii) Ratan Lal - 1/6
(iv) Chandrapal - 1/6
(v) Mohan Lal - 1/6
(vi) Kaluwa - 1/12 & Jag Veer-1/12
Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 15.11.1988 two appeals under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act were filed before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which were registered as appeal no. 1146 Ramesh and others Vs. Chandi Lal and Others and appeal no. 1152 Chandrapal Vs. Ramesh and otehrs. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 19.02.1994 dismissed the appeal no. 1146 and allowed the appeal no. 1152 expunging the name of Mohan Lal from Khata No. 242 and share of the parties was declared in following manner:-
i) Sohan Lal - 1/5 share
ii) Ratan Lal - 1/5 share
iii) Chandi Lal 1/5 share
iv) Chandrapal - 1/5 share
v) Kaluwa - 1/10 share
vi) Jagveer - 1/10 share
Against the appellate order dated 19.02.1994 a revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by Ramesh and others before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was registered as Revision No. 1644. The aforementioned revision was allowed vide order dated 18.10.1997 setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 15.11.1988 as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 19.02.1994 and the share of the parties in the Khata No. 242 was declared in following manner:-
i) Ramesh, Suresh, Mahesh sons of Mohan Lal - 1/6 share each.
ii) Chandi Lal, Sohan Lal, Ratan Lal, Chandrapal - 1/10 share each.
iii) Kaluwa, Jagveer sons of Bhoop Singh - 1/20 share each.
The order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation in respect to sale-deed was maintained. Restoration Applications filed by petitioner as well as respondent no. 7 to 11 against the revisional order dated 18.10.1997 were rejected by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 10.l1.2000 on the ground that earlier dated 18.10.1997 was passed on merit. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of petitioner for following relief:-
i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari after calling the records of the case and to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 10.11.2000 and 18.10.1997 passed by the respondent no. 1 contained respectively with its all consequential effects and to restore the judgment and order passed by the S.O.C. Bulandshahar on 19.02.2994.
ii) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
iii) To award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner against the contesting respondents.
3. This Court entertained the matter on 25.05.2001, issued notice to respondent nos 4 to 11 and parties were directed to maintain status quo with respect to nature and possession of the land in dispute till the date fixed, but by subsequent order dated 29.03.2005 interim order was extended till further orders.
4. In pursuance of the order dated 25.05.2001 parties have exchanged their pleading.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly decided the controversy after considering the evidence on record recording finding of fact that Mohan Lal is not entitled to be recorded in Khata No. 242 and share of the sons of Ganga Sahai shall be 1/5 each. He further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has exceeded his revisional jurisdiction in holding that Khata No. 242 was the acquisition of common ancester Meru as such Mohan Lal shall be entitled to 1/2 share. He further submitted that revisional Court has not reversed the finding of fact recorded by appellate as such impugned revisional judgment cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further placed reliance upon the judgment reported in 2002 (93) RD 35 Jangi Lal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2003 (94) RD 697 Ram Adhar and Others Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation Banda and Others, 2001 (92) RD 693 Smt. Bechna Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation of Others, 2001 (92) RD 695 Ram Karan Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others in order to demonstrate that Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot substitute his finding while deciding the revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. He submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has not afforded the reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as such the impugned revisional order is liable to be set aside.
6. No body appeared on behalf of private respondents.
7. Learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned revisional order and submitted that no interference is required in the matter.
8. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
9. There is no dispute about the fact that both parties were recorded in the Basic Year of Consolidation operation and the title objection regarding share has been decided by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 15.11.1998 for 1/6 share to each party. In appeal the name of Mohan Lal was ordered to be expunged and the share of others were fixed as 1/5 each, but in revision the claim of Mohan Lal was accepted for one half share.
10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter the following revenue entries, which were on record before consolidation authorities will be relevant:-
(i) Khatuni of 1321 Fasli - Common ancestor Meru was recorded
(ii) Khatauni of 1322 Fasli - Common ancestor Meru was recorded
(iii) Khatauni 1333-1334 Fasli - Ganga Sahai son of Meru was recorded
(Muddat 6-7 year)
(iv) Khatauni 1346-47 Fasli - Ganga Sahai son of Meru was recorded
(Muddat 19-20 year)
(v) Khatauni 1356 Fasli - Ganga Sahai son of Meru was recorded
(vi) Khatauni 1356 Fasli - Ganga Sahai son of Meru was recorded.
11. The khatauni of 1333 Fasli was summoned and it has been found that entry in column no. 2 is in red ink, which demonstrate that name of Ganga Sahai was recorded as heir of deceased Meru otherwise the entry can not be in red ink as prescribed under Land Record Manual. The patta executed on 20.09.1920 in favour of Meru and the entry made with effect from 1321 Fasli upto 1359 Fasli fully demonstrate that plot in dispute was recorded in the name of common ancestor Meru, as such the name of Ganga Sahai was recorded in representative capacity over the plot in question so sons of Meru will be entitled to equal share in the holdings.
12. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has exercised the revisional jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 48. Explanation 3 of U.P.C.H. Act in holding that plot in question belong to common ancestor Meru, as such Mohan Lal will also entitled for 1/2 share in the property/holding. The oral evidence adduced by parties before consolidation officer was also taken into consideration by Deputy Director of Consolidation in Holding that property/holding was not the acquisition of Ganga Sahai.
13. So far as scope of jurisdiction under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act is concern this Court in the Case reported in 2020 (148) RD 144 Smt. Lakshmania (dead) through L.Rs Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Deoria and Others has held that unique provision has been inserted under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act by way of explanation 3. Paragraph 44 of the judgment are relevant for perusal, which as under:-
"In this Case, the objections were filed in the year 1981, and, therefore, the amended provisions of Section 48, operative retrospectively, would squarely apply. Under the amended statute, the Revisional Court has been conferred with unique powers by virtue of the added Explanation 3 to go into the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by an Authority below, whether on fact or law, and includes the powers to appreciate any oral or documentary evidence. Thus, to the understanding of this Court, in view of the added Explanation by U.P. Act no. 3 of 2022, retrospectively w.e.f. 10.11.1980, the Revisional Court is in no manner inhibited from examining any question of fact or law, or appreciating evidence whether documentary or oral, virtually like any other Court of fact and law. It is a unique positiona that the Revisional Authority enjoys, under Section 48 of the Act, conventionally not associated with the exercise of revisional jurisdiction"
14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case no interference is required against the impugned judgment.
15. The Writ petition is dismissed.
16. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 07.05.2024
Neetu
