Allahabad High Court
Pramod Kumar Singh vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation, ... on 8 November, 2024
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73715
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1088 of 2024
Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Singh
Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Sultanpur And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel.
Under challenge is the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidations, Sultanpur, (hereinafter referred to as the D.D.C) dated 09.05.2024 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as S.O.C) dated 01.12.2023 and affirming the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 16.07.1991.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the basic year Khatauni the name of Sri Vanshi and Soman sons of Bharos was recorded.
The same came to be challenged by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner namely Ram Adhar and Ram Sundar Singh. It is further pointed out that the petitioners are claiming rights in the property having acquired Sirdari Rights in terms of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and thereafter, with the advent of the U.P Zamindari and Abolition Act, 1950, the said rights matured in to Bhumidari rights, consequently, the names of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner should have been recorded.
This matter was contested, however, the Consolidation Officer by means of an order dated 16.07.1991 rejected the contentions of the petitioners upholding the entries in the names of Vanshi and Soman. It is further urged that the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. C.H Act, 1953 and the S.O.C by a cursory order rejected the appeal on the ground of maintainability vide order dated 01.12.2023.
The matter was further escalated before the D.D.C, Sultanpur and it is urged that even the D.D.C noticing the fact that copy of the khasra was submitted before the S.O.C but its effect has not been considered nor any finding was given in that context. It is also pointed out that another ground was specifically raised in the memo of revision that the petitioners were not granted an adequate opportunity of hearing before the S.O.C and that has not been considered as a result, the petitioner has been deprived of a reasonable opportunity of hearing and their rights have been adversely affected and as such the said orders are apparently bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record, it reveals that the Consolidation Officer in its judgment dated 16.07.1991 has clearly noticed that in so far as, Ram Adhar is concerned, none of them led any evidence however, Abhay Raj Singh s/o Ram Sundar Singh was the only person who entered into the witness box and he led evidence and gave his statement which was contrary to the rights as set up by Ram Adhar Singh. It was further noticed that the petitioners had filed certain khasra entries from 1372 fasli onwards, however, since that was in context with a plea of adverse possession, but since the other ingredients required to prove successfully and canvas a plea of adverse possession, were not available consequently, rejected the claim. The same was assailed before the S.O.C and the same findings have been affirmed. The D.D.C also affirmed the findings and held that the case in terms of the adverse possession was not made out.
As far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that they were not afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing is concerned the same is little doubtful for the reason that the petitioners had adequate opportunity to contest the proceedings before the C.O and it is not disputed that none of the heirs of the Ram Adhar Singh had entered into the witness box to led any evidence. The contention as raised by the Abhay Raj Singh s/o Ram Sundar Singh if seen will indicate the manner in which the evidence has been led and it leads to an inference that the plea of adverse possession was being contested though not specifically pleaded in the objections filed under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H Act. It is now well settled that in so far as the pleadings before the Consolidation Authorities are concerned they are not to be strictly construed.
The C.O. in his judgment has clearly framed only one issue which is in context with the maturity of the rights of the petitioner as their names were recorded in Column-9, which is purely on the basis of possession. Thus the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, knew very well what case they have to meet and the issue clearly amplifies this aspect of the matter. It is not disputed that even before the S.O.C, the same issue was considered.
Another ground which has been raised is that the petitioners had filed a copy of khasra of 1356 fasli year wherein the names of Ram Sundar and Ram Adhar were recorded. Even if at all, the aforesaid plea is taken into consideration the fact still remains that there is nothing on record to establish the rights of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Mere khasra entry in absence of any entry in the record of rights would not grant any Sirdari rights in favour of the Ram Adhar and Ram Sundar. This aspect has been noticed by the D.D.C before whom the petitioners have advanced their submissions which has been noticed. Therefore, even if at all there may have been some lack of proper opportunity before the S.O.C yet the petitioners had full opportunity to agitate their grievances before the D.D.C which they have availed and now, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioners have suffered any prejudice for non grant of proper opportunity.
The other submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the appeal of the petitioners before the S.O.C was dismissed on account of maintainability even that does not come to aid of the petitioners for the reason that the matter has been considered on merits and a specific findings has been recorded that the petitioners did not lead any evidence to substantiate their claim. It may be that under Section 11(1) the petitioners had a right of statutory appeal which they have availed and the appeal was also decided on merits and not on the issue of maintainability and therefore, merely using a wrong terminology while dismissing the appeal is not going to grant any benefit to the petitioner to assail.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, concurrent findings have been recorded by the three courts and it is also not disputed that no worthwhile evidence has been brought on record or led before the Consolidation Authorities which could support the plea of the petition claiming title to the property.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is satisfied that the impugned orders passed by the D.D.C dated 09.05.2024 affirming the orders passed by the S.O.C dated 01.12.2023 and the order 16.07.1991 passed by the C.O. do not suffer from any manifest error to persuade this Court to entertain the petition which is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 8.11.2024
Harshita
