Allahabad High Court
Chandan Singh @ Chandra Pal Singh vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, ... on 27 March, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17470
RESERVED
A.F.R.
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1043 of 2024
Petitioner :- Chandan Singh @ Chandra Pal Singh
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Sitapur And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Aslam Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Digvijay Singh,Dilip Kumar Pandey
*****
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
1. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant petition, the relevant facts giving rise to the cause of action to the petitioner are being noticed hereinafter.
2. The dispute in question relates to Plots No.100, 318 and 443 having a total area of 4.3120 hectares, situate in village Para, Pargana, Tehsil and District Sitapur. The aforesaid plots are part of Khata No.218 which was recorded in the name of Ruda Singh as its Bhumidhar in the base year khatauni.
3. Ruda Singh is said to have expired in the year 1979 leaving behind his nephew (bhanja) i.e. the petitioner, who was the son of Smt. Sita Singh (sister of Ruda Singh and second wife of Fakirey Singh). The petitioner claimed rights in the property in dispute on the basis of being the preferential heir in terms of Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindar Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act of 1950').
4. The record indicates that in the year 1984, certain proceedings under Section 194 of the Act of 1950 were initiated in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Sitapur and vide its order dated 17.09.1984, the said case was decided by recording a finding that Shri Ruda Singh had died intestate. Since, he did not have any legal heir, hence, the plots in question were ordered to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha.
5. The petitioner states that when he came to know about the order dated 17.09.1984, he preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. By the said revision bearing No.78/2018, the petitioner had assailed the order, but during the aforesaid proceedings before the Additional Commissioner, it was noticed by the said Court that since an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1953 was pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, hence, the revisional Court abated the revision vide its order dated 22.02.2022.
6. It is also the case of the petitioner that village in question was notified under Section 4 of the Act of 1953 on 22.07.1995. The petitioner had filed his objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 before the Consolidation Officer, claiming title over the disputed plots as being the heir of late Ruda Singh (Mamaji, maternal uncle of the petitioner) on the basis of inheritance being the legal heir. In support of his claim, the petitioner had filed a certificate issued by Gram Pradhan stating that the petitioner is the nephew (Bhanja) of late Ruda Singh and that Smt. Sita Singh (mother of the petitioner) was the real sister of late Ruda Singh.
7. The Consolidation Officer vide its order dated 04.01.2016 allowed the objections of the petitioner. The State as well as Gram Sabha being aggrieved against the order dated 04.01.2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer preferred an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1953. Simultaneously, an appeal was also filed by Mohd. Imran Khan, Hari Shankar and Smt. Rukhsana. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation after hearing the parties concerned dismissed all the appeals by means of the order dated 08.05.2023.
8. In the meantime, in pursuance of the order dated 04.01.2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer in favour of the petitioner, the Consolidation Officer vide its order dated 09.06.2023 incorporated the name of the petitioner in the records maintained by the consolidation authorities. This order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceedings under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Rules, 1954 (for short, 'the Rules of 1954') was assailed by filing an appeal by the State and the Gaon Sabha, Mohd. Imran Khan, Hari Shankar and Smt. Prema Devi. All the said appeals were dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.
9. In the aforesaid backdrop, eight revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. One set was filed by the State, the other set was filed by Gaon Sabha. Separate revision was filed by Mohd. Imran Khan, separate revision was filed by Smt. Rukhsana and two separate revisions were filed by Hari Shankar. All the revisions were connected and have been decided by means of the order dated 17.09.2024. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed five revision filed by the State and Gaon Sabha wherein the order dated 04.01.2016 passed under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953, order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the Consolidation Officer under Rule 109 of the Rules of 1954 along with order dated 08.05.2023 and 03.08.2023 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation were set aside as a consequence revisions ending with the following number 173, 248, 267, 118 and 119 were allowed and revision ending with following number 190, 253 and 254 were dismissed. In this backdrop, the petitioner has assailed the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17.09.2024 by filing this petition.
10. Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri Shadab Khan and Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the revisions of the State and the Gaon Sabha as the order suffers from misconstruction of facts.
11. It was urged that reasons as indicated in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation reflects that the grounds which prevailed in the mind of the Court while allowing the revisions are legally not tenable.
12. It was stated that the revisional Court has noticed that the death certificate which was issued by the Gram Pradhan of the Gram did not inspire any confidence as it was issued by a person, who had no authority for doing so. It is further urged that it has incorrectly been held by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the order dated 17.09.1984 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was not challenged by the petitioner whereas the Deputy Director of Consolidation ignored the fact that the petitioner had filed a revision, assailing the order dated 17.09.1984, which as per the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 22.02.2022 was abated since the village in question was under consolidation operations and an appeal filed by the State and Gaon Sabha were pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.
13. It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner in the first place was not aware of the order dated 17.09.1984 but as soon as he became aware, he had challenged the order dated 17.09.1984, hence, it could not be said that the petitioner had not assailed the order. Once, the order had been assailed but the proceedings abated in view of consolidation operations, the order dated 17.09.1984 could not have been treated as having attained finality at least insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Moreover, by virtue of operation of law, the village was put under consolidation operations, hence, the said order could not come in the way of the petitioner.
14. It was further argued that when the petitioner had filed his objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 wherein the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation upheld the claim of the petitioner being the nephew (Bhanja) of late Ruda Singh, thus, till even one heir of Ruda Singh was alive then in light of the order of succession as provided in Section 171 of the Act of 1950, the property could not be vested in the State.
15. It was also urged that any proceedings held behind the back of the petitioner could not be pressed against him and once the matter was seized by the Consolidation Officer in proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 then the said proceedings become the substantive proceedings where the rights of the parties had to be adjudicated. Without considering the relationship of the petitioner and Ruda Singh and without holding that Ruda Singh did not have any heir till then passing of an order vesting the property in the State is per se in excess of jurisdiction vested in the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
16. It was also urged that the proceedings which were initiated in the year 1984 under Section 194 of the Act of 1950 where the petitioner was not a party, hence, any order passed in such proceedings could not be made binding against the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by observing that the order dated 17.09.1984 had not been assailed, therefore, the petitioner would have no right is an erroneous view, as in order to arrive at such a conclusion, it ought to have recorded cogent reasons to discredit the relationship of the petitioner and late Ruda Singh and needless to say, the same has not been done.
17. Learned Senior Counsel further in order to buttress his submissions pointed out that the alleged proceedings which culminated in order dated 17.09.1984 were a sham as it would indicate from the record that no notice was issued to the petitioner. Moreover, the proclamation which is said to have been made in the proceedings of the year 1984 was not in accordance with law, apart from the fact that it disclosed that the said proclamation was served on the Gram Pradhan and/or no other person.
18. It was also urged that where the Gram Pradhan was a contesting and an interested party then before any order under Section 194 of the Act of 1950 could be passed the least that could have been ascertained was whether the real affected parties had been served, however, in the instant case, it would reveal that there is nothing on record to indicate that apart from Gram Pradhan, the said notice was served on any of the private parties, who were contesting the proceedings and needless to say that the petitioner was not even a party. Hence, the said proceedings on which reliance has been placed by the State as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation it had no legs to support the case. Consequently, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was bad in law.
19. It was lastly urged by the learned Senior Counsel that once the proceedings had been decided by the Consolidation Officer holding the petitioner to be the nephew of late Ruda Singh then in such circumstances, there was no justification to vest the property in question with the State. It may be a different situation where apart from the petitioner certain other persons who also claimed to be nephews of Ruda Singh had contested the proceedings but that could only be treated as a dispute amongst the nephews inter se but it does not absolve the responsibility of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have noticed that even if one legal heir was available, the land could not be vested in the State and thus the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17.09.1984 cannot stand judicial scrutiny and deserves to be set aside.
20. Dr. Krishna Singh, learned standing counsel appearing for the State has refuted the submission advanced by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and he urged that the petitioner has not stated the complete facts and has also not brought on record the relevant documents and orders which were passed in respect of the disputed property from time to time as well as certain subsequent events such as gift-deeds executed by the petitioner in favour of third parties.
21. Elaborating his submissions, Dr. Singh, learned standing counsel submitted that initially proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (for short, 'the Act of 1901') bearing Case No.174 was decided on 19.07.1979 wherein in respect of Plot No.190-A which was recorded in the name of Ruda Singh, his name, was deleted and it came to be recorded in the name of Nathu Singh son of Pahalwan Singh, who claimed on the basis of a Will. The remaining land of Ruda Singh was mutated in the names of Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh, all three sons of Badri Singh, who claimed to be the nephews (children of real sister of Ruda Singh) as successors of Ruda Singh.
22. Upon an application moved by the Pradhan, the proceedings under Section 194 of the Act of 1950 were initiated on the premise that Ruda Singh did not have any successor, hence, the land ought to be vested with the Gaon Sabha. The said proceedings initiated at the behest of the then Gram Pradhan came to be contested by Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh (who claimed to be the nephews of Ruda Singh being his real sister's sons), however, the same came to be decided by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sitapur holding that Ruda Singh did not have any legal heir and the land was directed to be vested with the State/Gaon Sabha by means of the order dated 17.09.1984. Since then, the land remained recorded with the Gaon Sabha.
23. Upon commencement of consolidation operations in the village in the year 1995, one Chandan Singh (the petitioner) filed his objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 claiming rights on the land on the basis of succession claiming to be the nephew of Ruda Singh, however, later Chandan Singh absented himself in the proceedings and an ex-parte order dated 11.04.2008 was passed. Subsequently, an application for restoration was moved by one Akhilesh Kumar which was allowed on 01.08.2012 and thereafter the proceedings were revived and the Consolidation Officer framed issues on 09.08.2012.
24. It was further submitted that earlier Chandan Singh had filed his objections on 09.12.2004 claiming rights in the land in question being the successor of Ruda Singh but after the restoration, Chandan Singh filed another set of objections on 19.06.2013 claiming on the basis of an unregistered Will of Ruda Singh.
25. It was further submitted that the Consolidation Officer while passing the order dated 04.01.2016 erred in ignoring the material on record relating to the earlier round of litigation including the fact that the petitioner could not have claimed rights being the nephew of Ruda Singh merely on the strength of a certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan which had no sanctity apart from the fact that the Consolidation Officer also did not consider the impact of the earlier order dated 19.07.1979 as well as the order dated 17.09.1984 which related to the property in question and the said orders had remained intact.
26. It was also urged that during pendency of the appeal filed by Prema Devi before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, she impleaded the State and Gaon Sabha as a party and she pressed that the said land be vested in the State. It was further urged that the order passed in proceedings under Section 194 of the Act of 1950 was not challenged in a revision before the Additional Commissioner, which was abated vide order dated 22.02.2022. It was urged that in the revision before the Additional Commissioner the order dated 25.11.2017 was challenged which was only a consequential order, but the main order dated 17.09.1984 never came to be challenged and to this extent the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has not made a correct submission rather his pleadings in Para-6 of the writ petition and the submissions both are against the record. Thus, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation committed a gross error in dismissing the appeal by proceeding on the premise that the order dated 17.09.1984 was challenged.
27. The learned standing counsel had further submitted that in the aforesaid backdrop the State and the Gaon Sabha preferred the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who after taking note of the facts and also specifically noticing that the order dated 17.09.1984 was never challenged coupled with the fact that there was no material worth consideration to establish that the petitioner was the nephew of Ruda Singh, allowed the revisions and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17.09.2024 cannot be faulted.
28. Dr. Singh has further pointed out that identity of the present petitioner is also dubious for the reason that while Chandan Singh son of Fakirey had filed his objections before the Consolidation Officer and in the Vakalatnama filed by Chandan Singh, there was discrepancy in his signatures. It was also sought to be pointed out by the learned standing counsel that the date of birth of Chandan Singh as noticed in Aadhar Card is different to the date of birth recorded in his driving licence.
29. It was further pointed out that in an appeal filed by Prema Singh, the present petitioner Chandan Singh used his alias as Chandra Pal Singh and appeared through Ram Kumar Shukla son of Sharda Prasad Shukla, resident of Koraiya, Udaipur, on the basis of power of attorney executed by Chandan Singh alias Chandra Pal Singh whereas Ram Kumar Shukla filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Chandra Pal Singh and not Chandan Singh.
30. It was further submitted that even though the land already vested with the State but Chandan Singh did not implead the State or the Gaon Sabha as a party and it is only at a later stage, DGC (Revenue) filed an application that the State and the Gaon Sabha be made a party. Moroever, as soon as the order was passed by the Consolidation Officer directing to record the name of Chandan Singh alias Chandra Pal Singh as a successor of Ruda Singh, he immediately executed gift-deeds in respect of land in dispute to Ram Kumar Shukla and his family members. Significantly, Ram Kumar Shukla is the same person whose son had separately filed objections before the Consolidation Officer and Chandan Singh had also executed his power of attorney in favour of Ram Kumar Shukla who appeared and contested the appeal of Prema Devi on behalf of Chandan Singh. This clearly indicates that by forming caucus of individuals attempt was made to usurp the Government land.
31. Another fact was pointed out that the gift-deeds which were executed in favour of Ram Kumar Shukla and his family members but the petitioner were witnessed by Devakar Prashad son of Chandrika Prasad, who is the very same person who had filed the affidavit as Pairokar of the petitioner in the instant petition. It was pointed out that as soon as Chandan Singh had executed gift-deeds in favour of Ram Kumar Shukla and his family members, he had no locus to maintain the instant petition. It was also stated that Ram Kumar Shukla has long criminal history of about 16 cases and he yields a terror in the area in question and he is also responsible for grabbing the land of the Government and the present petitioner is being used as a front by him.
32. For the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation after taking note of the entire background had recorded findings of fact that there was not enough material to establish that Chandan Singh was the nephew of Ruda Singh. Moreover, at no point of time, the petitioner had challenged the earlier order dated 17.09.1984 by which land vested in the State and the said order remained intact, hence, there was no challenge to the same, accordingly, in an indirect manner, it was not open for the petitioner to have usurped the land in consolidation proceedings.
33. It was also urged that the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation did not take note of the fact that Chandan Singh had initially filed his objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 on the basis of succession and later filed another set of objections claiming on the basis of Will of Ruda Singh while the said Will never saw light of the day in the entire proceedings and his conduct was also suspicious and no evidence was led to establish the relationship of the petitioner with Ruda Singh.
34. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner who is merely a front created to usurp and grab the property of the State has no right, title or interest in the property, hence, the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.
35. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner in rejoinder had additionally submitted that any criminal history against Ram Kumar Shukla cannot be read against the petitioner to discredit his right as well as it can have no impact on the relationship of the petitioner with Ruda Singh.
36. He urged that the petitioner had assailed the order by which the land in question vested with the State, but the revision was abated on account of the consolidation operations in the village, hence, it is not correct to state that the petitioner had not assailed the order and the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are perverse and against the material on record. Consequently, the writ petition be allowed.
37. Shri Shraswat Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the private-respondent No.5 had submitted that since the private-respondent No.5 did not have any personal right regarding the title of the property in dispute, hence, they do not propose to file any counter affidavit. Thus, for the said reason, the said private-respondent No.5 had no submission to make.
38. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.
39. It is an undisputed fact that the property in dispute was recorded in the name of Ruda Singh. It is also not disputed that Ruda Singh died on 12.01.1979. Upon his death, two sets of claims were made, firstly by Nathu Singh son of Pahalwan Singh, who claimed on the basis of Will said to have been executed by Ruda Singh and secondly the claims were raised by Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh, the three sons of Badri, who claimed to be the nephews (Bhanja) of Ruda Singh.
40. This relationship was disclosed by the petitioner only in his rejoinder affidavit indicating that Ruda Singh son of Bhujja Singh had two sisters, namely, Smt. Sita Singh and Smt. Parvati Singh. The present petitioner is the son of Fakirey Singh who had solemnized second marriage with Smt. Sita Singh (sister of Ruda Singh). The other sister, namely, Smt. Parvati Singh was married to Bardi Singh and in this way the other nephews namely, Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh being sons of Badri had claimed the property of Ruda Singh in their capacity of being the nephews of Ruda Singh.
41. From a perusal of short counter affidavit, filed by the State, it would reveal that mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the Act of 1901 were initiated, wherein the name of Nathu Singh son of Pahalwan Singh was recorded as the legatee of Ruda Singh, whereas Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh sons of Badri Singh were recorded on the basis of succession being the nephews of Ruda Singh (Bhanja).
42. It will be relevant to notice at this stage that this is first litigation which commenced in 1979 relating to the property of Ruda Singh. At that given point of time, there was no mention regarding the petitioner being the nephew of Ruda Singh. Neither Smt. Sita Singh contested the proceedings for her son (assuming if Chandan Singh would have been a minor). Moreover, Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh while contesting the proceedings also did not disclose that there was another nephew (son of Smt. Sita Singh). This first round of litigation is said to be contested by the alleged children of Smt. Parvati Singh (the other sister of Ruda Singh). After the order dated 19.07.1979 was passed in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act of 1901, thereafter, proceedings were initiated at the behest of the State under Section 194 of the Act of 1950 which came to be decided on 17.09.1984 vesting the land in the State.
43. Significantly, neither Nathu Singh, who claimed rights to the property of Ruda Singh on the basis of Will nor the three sons of Smt. Parvati Singh, namely, Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh challenged the order dated 17.09.1984. A natural corollary which follows logic is the fact that in case if right of any party is extinguished, necessarily the aggrieved would raise objection. However, in this case, Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh though contested the proceedings under Section 194 of the Act of 1950 which came to be decided in favour of the State vide order dated 17.09.1984, but they never assailed the said order in any further proceedings. Thus, insofar as the persons who were interested in the property of Ruda Singh and had raised their claims being the legatee of Ruda Singh and his nephews they all did not assail the order dated 17.09.1984 and apparently it can be deduced that they abandoned their rights in favour of the State.
44. Undisputedly, since 17.09.1984, the land in question remained recorded in the name of the State and no person came forward assailing the said order or the entry in the revenue records in the name of the State at the given time.
45. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner could not indicate as to why the present petitioner who alleged himself to be the nephew (Bhanja) of Ruda Singh did not ever put his claim at the first point of time upon the death of Ruda Singh in 1979 or even after the order dated 17.09.1984 was passed. Merely a vague assertion was made by the petitioner that as and when he became aware of the said order, the same was challenged, however from the material available on record, it indicates that the present petitioner did not assail the order dated 17.09.1984 at all.
46. The record indicates that in Para-6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated as under:-
"6. That on coming to know about the order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner-I, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. During the pendency of the revision, the village was notified under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act (hereinafter called) the Act on 22.7.1995 and the proceedings were pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, hence, on 22.2.2022, an order was passed for abatement of the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.9.1984 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sitapur. A copy of the order dated 22.2.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial-I), Lucknow Division, Lucknow is filed herewith as Annexure No.1."
47. In context of the aforesaid paragraph, if the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 22.02.2022, marked as Annexure No.1, is perused, it would indicate that the said revision was filed in the year 2018 against an order dated 25.11.2017 which was merely a consequential order in terms whereof the mutation entry in the name of the State was made. However, by challenging the order dated 25.11.2017 without assailing the order dated 17.09.1984, no benefit can be derived by the petitioner. In light of this fact the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the order dated 17.09.1984 was challenged by the petitioner appears to be baseless and it does not find any corroboration from the record before the Court.
48. This Court notices a fact that despite the petitioner having filed his rejoinder affidavit to the short counter affidavit filed by the [State wherein it was stated that the petitioner has not assailed the order dated 17.09.1984], an opportunity was available to the petitioner to indicate whether the said order dated 17.09.1984 was challenged and if so, a copy of the revision could have been the best evidence available with the petitioner, but the same has not been brought on record. In view thereof and in absence of any material brought before this Court, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner had assailed the order dated 17.09.1984 pales into insignificance rather it appears to have been advanced before this Court wrongly and without verifying the record.
49. There is another way to look at the aforesaid facts. Once the petitioner knew that the village in question was under consolidation operations since 1995 and the petitioner had filed his two separate objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953, one set on the basis of succession in the year 2004 and later on the basis of a Will of Ruda Singh in the year 2013 then what was his justification to file the revisions before the Additional Commissioner only in 2017 after the Consolidation Officer had allowed his objections and that too challenging the consequential order and not the primary order dated 17.09.1984. Moreover, he knew his objections before the Consolidation Officer were allowed and yet he did not inform the Court of Additional Commissioner regarding the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and it is only the DGC (Revenue), who informed the Court that an appeal was pending that the Additional Commissioner abated the proceedings. This appears to be a ruse resorted to by the petitioner and the said fact cannot come to the aid of the petitioner.
50. In light of this fact, the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner abating the proceedings where the challenge was made to the order dated 25.11.2017 and not to the order dated 17.09.1984 cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner and the basic premise of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel looses its substratum.
51. At the cost of repetition, it is noticed that since 1979 till the year 2018, there was never any challenge made by Chandan Singh and there has been no cogent explanation regarding the same either in the petition or in the rejoinder affidavit and not even during the course of submissions made before this Court.
52. Learned Senior Counsel also could not demonstrate the reasons and the purpose regarding two separate sets of objections filed by Chandan Singh under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 rather the same were concealed. In the first set of objections filed under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 dated 09.12.2004, a copy thereof has been brought on record at running page 40-41 of the short counter affidavit filed by the State wherein Chandan Singh alias Chandra Pal Singh son of Fakirey Singh is shown to be 50 years of age. Moreover, the pedigree shown in the said objections is quite different to the pedigree given by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit filed before this Court. Moreover, the Aadhar Card which has been brought on record by the petitioner is in the name Chandan Singh alias Chandra Pal Singh whereas his date of birth is shown as 20.08.1973. It has also not been explained by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in case if the name of the petitioner was Chandan Singh alias Chandra Pal Singh, but in the identities which have been filed Chandan Singh is missing and the name has been shown as "Chandra Pal Singh" with a completely different date of birth i.e. if the date of birth as mentioned in his objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953 is seen, his age is shown as 50 years in 2004 which necessarily would imply i.e. his date of birth would be around 1954 and in case if the Aadhar Card is taken note of then his date of birth is 20.08.1973 and there is a huge gap of 20 years between the two.
53. In addition, the power of attorney executed by Chandan Singh in favour of Ram Kumar Shukla son of Sharda Prasad Shukla also uses the word 'Chandan Singh alias Chandra Pal Singh'. The Vakalatnama which is brought on record, which is at running page 199 of the short counter affidavit, filed by the State, also indicates the signatures in the name of Chandra Pal Singh which has been written quite differently on the power of attorney which has been brought on record at running Page-193 of the short counter affidavit, filed by the State, indicating the writing of full name Chandan Singh alias Chandra Pal Singh. In the same vein, if the objections filed by the petitioner on 19.06.2013 is seen which is at running page 200 of the short counter affidavit, it would indicate that Chandan Singh claimed rights in the property of Ruda Singh on the basis of a Will. However, despite putting to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner no reasonable answer was given. Significantly though this document was placed on record along with the short counter affidavit and thereafter the petitioner had filed his rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit, but nowhere any denial or explanation was given for the aforesaid discrepancies, which are writ large on the record .
54. In the aforesaid context, the first submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the only reason which prevailed in the mind of Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order was the fact that the order dated 17.09.1984 is till intact and was not challenged was incorrect turns out to be misconceived and is turned down.
55. Now once the order dated 17.09.1984 by which the land vested in the State remained intact whether the consolidation authorities could have taken a different view also needs to be examined. It is no doubt true that once the village is brought under the consolidation operations, any party aggrieved can raise objection which is to be considered by the authorities and in this scenario while the village came under consolidation operations, the petitioner filed his objections on the basis of succession.
56. In order to claim rights on the basis of succession it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to prove the fact that at the time of death of Ruda Singh in the year 1979, who were the heirs present and alive in the preferential order of succession as per Section 171 of the Act of 1950 and how the petitioner alone could seek precedence over others or that the petitioner was the sole surviving heir. This necessarily required the relationship between petitioner and Ruda Singh to be established with the fresh family tree and date of death of the heirs to determine the actual preferential heir alive at the time of death of Ruda Singh.
57. To prove the aforesaid fact, the petitioner merely filed a certificate, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. Apart from this document, there was no other documentary evidence filed by the petitioner.
58. From a perusal of the said certificate, it reveals that it is issued by Jaidevi, who is said to be the Pradhan. However, the said document is undated. The said certificate states that the said Pradhan namely Jaidevi certifies that Ruda Singh son of Bhujja Singh, resident of Gram Para, Pargana, Tehsil and District Sitapur had died. He had two brothers, namely, Bhangat Singh and Ujjagar Singh, who died issueless and unmarried. Ruda Singh also had two sisters namely, Parvati Singh, who had no children alive and Parvati Singh had also died. The other sister Sita Singh, had also died. She had one son Chandan Singh alias Chandra Pal Singh and he is real nephew of Ruda Singh, who is the lawful heir of Ruda Singh and Ruda Singh has no other heir.
59. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner could not justify as to how the Pradhan would have the authority to issue such a certificate. Even if at all the certificate is noticed, it would be found that it was undated and is vague. There is no corroboration of the facts mentioned in the said certificate as issued by the Pradhan Jaidevi. There is no reference to the date of death of any of the persons so mentioned in the said certificate. Moreover, the manner in which the said certificate has been drawn does not inspire confidence, both in terms of facts or even in context of its relevancy and admissibility.
60. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that actually when Ruda Singh died in the year 1979 yet there was no death certificate issued by any Competent Authority nor any relevant entries from the Parivar Register were brought on record, then under what provisions such a certificate was brought on record as Annexure No.5 and how it could be relied upon and could be made the basis of a finding, especially when the date of death was not mentioned in the alleged certificate which is being heavily relied upon by the petitioner for the purpose of establishing the relationship of the petitioner with late Ruda Singh. There is no mention regarding the date of death of two brothers of Ruda Singh. This assumes significance for the reasons that the names of two brothers namely, Bhangat Singh and Ujjagar Singh have not been mentioned in the pedigree which has been given by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit. Neither the date of marriage nor the date of death of the two sisters have been mentioned and this assumes significance for the reason that whether Chandan Singh was the son of Sita Singh, the alleged sister of Ruda Singh and all this was necessary to determine the succession when it opened in 1979 upon the death of Ruda Singh.
61. For the petitioner, it was of prime importance to plead and establish who were the family members of Ruda Singh and when Ruda Singh died in 1979, which of his legal heirs were surviving at the given time. In absence of this vital information coupled with the fact when the two sisters of Ruda Singh were married and with whom, also who were the nephews (if so) born and surviving on the said date of death of Ruda Singh. This was to be seen in order to determine the rightful successor and upon whom the property of Ruda Singh would devolve.
62. Moreover, from the material available on record, it would also reveal that there is huge difference in the age of the petitioner as per his own documents. As per his Aadhar Card, the petitioner was born in the year 1973 while in the objections filed by the petitioner before the Consolidation Court in the year 2004 his age is mentioned as 50 years, so as per the same, the petitioner would have been born somewhere in 1954. Thus, as per the petitioner himself there is a wide difference in his date of birth ranging over two decades and for the said reason the veracity of the claim for succession of the petitioner being the heir of Ruda Singh and surviving him in 1979 as the only heir also becomes highly doubtful and suspicious and more so in absence of any evidence to the contrary.
63. Learned Senior Counsel could not dispute the fact that no document worth its name was brought on record by the petitioner to establish the relationship. No common relative, family, friend or person, who knew the family was examined as a witness and even till the filing of the writ petition, no document was placed on record to establish some semblance of relationship. In absence of cogent evident to this effect and seeing the manner in which the proceedings have been contested that is to say that two sets of objections, one in the year 2004 and the other in the year 2013 before the Consolidation Officer and that too on complete diagrammatically opposite lines i.e. claiming succession as per Section 171 of the Act of 1950 in the objections of 2004 and then claiming rights in the property on the basis of Will in the year 2013 coupled with the fact that the said will had never seen the light of the day since 1979.
64. Additionally, Chandan Singh having executed a power of attorney in favour of Ram Kumar Shukla son of Sharda Prasad, who contested the proceedings as power of attorney holder of the petitioner, this fact along with the event of execution of the gift-deed by the petitioner in favour of family members of Ram Kumar Shukla soon after his name was recorded as per the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in the year 2016 coupled with the fact that the instant petition came to be filed through pairokar, namely, Devakar Prashad, who is the person who was the witness in the said gift-deeds and only later the rejoinder affidavit came to be filed by the petitioner wherein his name has been shown as Chandan Singh with his date of birth is shown as 20.08.1973. Moreover, the record indicates that the writ petition was filed with the petitioner being described as Chandan Singh @ Chandra Pal Singh. However, in the photo verification on the affidavit the name of the petitioner is Chandra Pal Singh. The photo identify document also shows the name as Chandra Pal Singh. What is surprising is the fact that the petitioner's name is Chandan Singh and apparently Chandra Pal Singh is the alias, however, his photo identify is in the alias name and not in the original proper name. The alias is used to complement the name but it does not substitute the original name. This also creates a suspicion as this has been taken as a ground by the State in its short counter affidavit and no proper explanation has been given while filing the rejoinder affidavit or during the course of arguments by the petitioner.
65. Coming to the last submissions of the learned Senior Counsel whereby it was urged that even if at all Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh are to be treated to be the nephews even then the land cannot vest in the State and this aspect has not been taken note by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
66. This submission of the learned Senior Counsel is also misconceived for the reasons that once the proceedings under Section 194 of the Act of 1950 were initiated, the said persons, namely, Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh had contested the proceedings and had filed their objections and after the order dated 17.09.1984 was passed on merits, they did not assail the order any further. Once there is a finding that the order dated 17.09.1984 was passed by a competent Court and the said order was not assailed or challenged any further it was binding on the parties and to that extent, it is not open for the petitioner to espouse the cause of Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh. Moreover, the petitioner does not have a right to call in question the proceedings under Section 194 of the Act of 1950 to allege that there was no proper proclamation and the only notice that was served was on the Pradhan. This fact is incorrect as shall be evident from the order dated 17.09.1984 which indicates that the notices were issued to the concerned parties and they had put their objections. Once the parties had appeared and filed their objections and contested the matter, the issue of irregularity of service of notice pales into insignificance.
67. Since, neither Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh raised any objections of this nature, the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of indirectly assailing an order or raising any objections to the mode of service which was personal to those three persons namely Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh who did not raise it. Hence, the said submission also does not find favour with this Court.
68. There is another reason to discard the aforesaid submissions and that is, the petitioner did not disclose that at the time of death of Ruda Singh, apart from the petitioner (being the Bhanja as alleged) there were three other nephews of Ruda Singh being children of Parvati Singh (sister of Ruda Singh). Moreover, Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh also in the year 1979 did not refer to the petitioner being the Bhanja of Ruda Singh. Throughout the proceedings whether it was Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh or it was the petitioner, none disclosed the facts. Each set trying to oust the other, despite the fact, that the petitioner or Raghubar Singh, Mangal Singh and Bharat Singh if were the real nephews it would have been disclosed mere non-disclosure of vital facts also gives credence that they were not the family members or heirs of Ruda Singh.
69. Lastly, once an order was passed on 17.09.1984 in substantive proceedings under Section 194 of the Act of 1950 and it remained unchallenged then it was imperative for the petitioner to challenge it and since it was not challenged, then the Consolidation Authorities could not ignore it. Hence to this extent, the orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation cannot be countenanced. This error had been rectified by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
70. Thus, the circuitous manner in which the multiple claims have been laid at different point of time and contradictory plea of the petitioner claiming on the basis of succession and also claiming on an alleged will which was never placed on record and not disclosing that there were other nephews of Ruda Singh (if they actually were) and conveniently stating that all relevant persons (sibling) of Ruda Singh were dead without giving any date of death, it all piles upto create doubt and suspicion which could not be explained or dispelled by cogent evidence, hence, the findings of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation cannot be sustained and for all the reasons, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly rejected the same.
71. In view of the aforesaid detailed discussions, this Court is of the clear opinion that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17.09.2024 cannot be termed as bad in the eyes of law, hence, the petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, stands vacated. Costs are made easy.
Order Date :- 27.03.2025
Rakesh/-
