Jeet Ram vs Som Datt And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9322 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Jeet Ram vs Som Datt And Others on 17 April, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56267
 
Reserved On:17.3.2025
 
Delivered On:17.4.2025
 
Court No. - 50
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 21426 of 2005
 

 
Petitioner :- Jeet Ram
 
Respondent :- Som Datt And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- K.R. Sirohi,Anil Mullik,Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi,Shiv Karan,V.K. Singh,Y.K.Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramendra Asthana
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shiv Karan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Nobody is present on behalf of the private respondent in spite of the sufficient service upon the private respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the dispute relates to khata nos.247, 474 & 572 situated at Village- Kalandi, Pargana and Tahsil- Sardhana, District- Meerut. The aforementioned khata were recorded in the name of Raja Ram (grand-father of the petitioner). The Raja Ram had two sons, namely, Harcharan (father of the petitioner) and Shiv Lal (father of respondent nos.1 to 6). After the death of Raja Ram, the name of sons of Shiv Lal was recorded, accordingly, petitioner's father challenged the entry in the name of Shiv Lal before the revenue authorities but due to notification issued under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act"), the dispute could not be settled by the revenue authorities. Against the basic year entry of the plot in question a title objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the petitioner' father pleading that Raja Ram had died on 14.7.1977 and he had never executed any Will or any other document in favour of any person in respect to disputed khata. In the aforementioned proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act before the Consolidation Officer, four issues were framed and parties have adduced evidence in support of their cases. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 9.5.1986 rejected the objection filed by the petitioner's father for co-tenancy in the disputed khata and the entry in the name of respondent nos.1 to 6 (sons of Shiv Lal) was maintained. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 9.5.1986, appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the petitioner before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The aforementioned appeal was heard and dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 28.10.1991. Against the appellate order dated 28.10.1991, petitioner's father filed revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act which was heard and allowed by the Joint Director of Consolidation vide order dated 30.7.1993 granting co-tenancy right to the petitioner's father for 1/2 share in the disputed khata. Against the revisional order dated 30.7.1993, Civil Misc. Writ Petition was filed before this Court by respondent nos.1 to 6, which was allowed vide judgment dated 3.7.2003 setting aside the revisional order dated 30.7.1993 and the matter was remanded back before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh keeping in mind the observation made in the body of the judgment. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 3.7.2003, revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by petitioner's father was heard afresh. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 25.2.2005 dismissed the revision filed by petitioner's father, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:

"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders 19.5.1986, 28.11.1991 & 25.2.2005 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut (Annexure No.VI, X & XIII to the writ petition) respectively."

4. This Court entertained the matter on 23.3.2005 and granted the interim protection to the effect that status quo in respect to the nature and possession of the land in dispute shall be maintained by the parties.

5. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 23.3.2005, the parties have exchanged their pleadings.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that common ancestor Raja Ram had two sons, namely, Harcharan (father of the petitioner) and Shiv Lal (father of respondent nos.1 to 6), as such, both branches will be entitled to 1/2 share in the disputed khata. He further submitted that the claim setup by the private respondents on the basis of Will-deed to be executed in favour of private respondent nos.1 to 6 (sons of Shiv Lal only) has not been proved in accordance with law, as such, no right can be given to the private respondent nos.1 to 6 on the basis of Will-deed depriving the other branch of the family. He further submitted that under the Will-deed in question, petitioner has been deprived from the khata in dispute without assigning satisfactory reason in the Will-deed, as such, Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the revision earlier has directed that both branches should be entitled 1/2 share in the khata in dispute. He further submitted that before the Consolidation Officer there was no proper pleading regarding the date of execution of Will-deed in favour of private respondents, as such, petitioner could not be deprived from 1/2 share in the khata in dispute. He further placed the Will-deed dated 19.7.1977 executed by one Raja Ram, which is annexed as Annexure No.5 to the instant writ petition in order to demonstrate that the same cannot be relied upon by the private respondent nos.1 to 6 to deprive the natural heir of the deceased Raja Ram from the Khata in dispute. He further submitted that this Court allowed the writ petition against the earlier order of Deputy Director of Consolidation and remanded the matter before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision in accordance with law but without considering the dispute in proper manner the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed under the impugned revisional order. He further submitted that the impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities should be set aside and authorities be directed to record the name of petitioner over the 1/2 share of the khata in dispute. He placed reliance upon the following judgments of this Court in support of his argument:

i. 1998 (89) RD 794, Smt. Chamno Devi vs. Shankar.

ii. 1998 (89) RD 390, Gurdial Kaur and Others vs. Kartar Kaur and Others.

iii. 2005 (99) RD 577, Sheo Dhari and Others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that the concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by all the three Courts rejecting the title objection, title appeal and title revision filed by petitioner, as such, no interference is required by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. There is no dispute about the fact that in the basic year of the consolidation operation khata in dispute was recorded in the name of respondent nos.1 to 6 and title objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed against the basic year entry on behalf of the petitioner. There is also no dispute about the fact that Consolidation Officer has rejected the title objection filed by the petitioner and the order of Consolidation Officer has been maintained in appeal as well as in revision.

10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of issues framed before the Consolidation Officer will be relevant which is as under:

"1- ???? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???

2- ???? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???

3- ???? ???? ?????? 1888/2 ?? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ???

4- ???? ??? 1875, 1888 ?? ????????? ???? ?????? ?? ???"

11. Perusal of the finding of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer while deciding the title objection on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties will be also relevant which is as under:

???????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???????

??? ??????- 90-91-92-93-94-95-96-97-98-99-100

???????? ???? 9?(2) ????? ??????? ????? ??????

1. ???? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ?????

????

1. ???? ???????, 2. ???? ???????, 3. ???? ??????, 4. ???? ?????????, 5. ???? ????, 6. ???? ??????? (??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????)

?????? ????? ??????? ????? ? ????? ????? ???? ?????

?? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? "??? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ?????-????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ??????????? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ????????? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?????? 22.7.66 ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ? ????????? ?? ????? ?? ????? 2 ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? "??? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?????? 22.7.66 ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? 2 ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ???

?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? 6 ?? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? 17.7.77 ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? 18.12.84 ??? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ??? 5, 6 ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? 1978 ?? 1979 ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ??? 1977?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????????? 19.7.77 ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?????? 28.7.77 ?? ???????? ???? ???

??????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ????????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? 1 ???? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ? ??? ?????? ?????? 2 ??????????? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? 3 ?? ???? ????? ?? ????-???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? 4 ??? ???? ??? 1875, 1880 ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?? 2? ?? ?????? 4 ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??? 1885, 1886, 1887, 1888/1 ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???

??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? 247, 474 ? 572 ?? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ?????????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???????, ???????, ??????, ????? ????, ???? ? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ??? 1885, 1886, 1887, 1888/1 ?? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? 1888/2 ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? 1875 ? 1880 ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?? 2? ?? ?????? 4 ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???91 ????? 100 ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ?????? ????

???????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?????

?? ??????

????

9.5.86"

12. Perusal of the finding of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer fully demonstrates that the Will-deed setup by respondent nos.1 to 6 was properly considered by the Consolidation Officer as well as the evidence regarding the date of death of Raja Ram was also taken into consideration while holding that claim of co-tenancy setup by the petitioner's father cannot be allowed.

13. The finding of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer has been maintained in appeal and revision exercising the appellate / revisional jurisdiction in proper manner.

14. Perusal of the Will-deed executed by Raja Ram on 19.7.1977 will be also relevant, which is as under:

??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? ????? ????? ? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ...????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ? ?????? ? ??????? ? ????????? ? ???? ? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ????? ???????? ????? ? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ? ?????? ???? ??? ? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ...? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ????????? ? ?????????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ???????? ????? ? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?????????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????

???? 1- ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ? ??????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? 2:- ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ? ?????? ? ??????? ? ????????? ? ???? ? ??????? ????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????? ? ?????????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ? ?????

???? 3- ?? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ? ?????? ???? ??? ? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ???

???? 4- ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?? ????? ? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???????

??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?????, ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???

??????:- 19 ?????? ????? ??? 1977 ??? ???????

?????? ????????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ? ?????

????- ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? 0.50 ????"

15. Perusal of the Will deed executed by Raja Ram fully demonstrates that the reason has been assigned while executing the Will-deed in favour of grand-son of one of the branch of the family, as such, there is no illegality in the execution of Will-deed by Raja Ram in favour of respondent nos.1 to 6.

16. Perusal of the revisional order dated 25.2.2005, which was passed in compliance of the remand order passed by this Court fully demonstrate that there was proper compliance of Section 68 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as well as the provisions contained under The Indian Succession Act, 1925 as marginal witness Shri Nathu Singh and deed writer Shri Shambhu Dutta Sharma has proved the will-deed dated 19.7.1977 executed by Raja Ram in favour of respondent nos.1 to 6 (sons of Shiv Lal) as such, there is no illegality in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by Deputy Director of Consolidation.

17. Considering the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer, under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, Settlement Officer of Consolidation under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act and Deputy Director of Consolidation, under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act rejecting the claim of co-tenancy setup by petitioner's father, there is no scope of interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the concurrent judgement passed by all the three consolidation authorities in the title proceeding.

18. The writ petition is dismissed.

19. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 17.4.2025

Rameez