Sudama Yadav vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1024 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sudama Yadav vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 ... on 15 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


                                             Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80861
 
Court No. - 50
 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 10450 of 2017
 
Petitioner :- Sudama Yadav
 
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Santoosh Kumar Dwivedi
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
 

1. Heard Smt. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Santosh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for private respondents and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the basic year of consolidation operation plot Nos.155, 166, 20, 21 of Khata No.278 situated in village Jangal Lauthuha, Tappa Chaura Badgao, Pargana Sidhua Jobna, District Deoria Now Kushinagar was recorded in the name of predecessor of the petitioner as well as private respondent No.4. Against the basic year entry of the plot in question, an objection under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to 'U.P.C.H. Act') was filed by respondent No.4- Madan on the ground that plot in question was self-acquisition of predecessor of respondent No.4. Respondent No.5- Lutawan has also filed a separate objection, under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act for recording his name over the plot in question as co-tenure holders. The objection filed by respondent was registered as Case No.930. Issues were framed before the Consolidation Officer and parties have adduced evidence in support of their cases. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 8.10.1997 decided the aforementioned objection in respect to the plot in question for recording the name of Respondent No.4- Madan and for expunging the name of grandfather of the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer in the operative portion of this order has directed that 1/2 share of plot no.155/166 shall be given to the petitioner- Sudama. Against the order dated 8.10.1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer, respondent no.4 filed an appeal under Section 11 of U.P.C.H. Act before the Settlement Consolidation Officer. Two more appeals were filed, one appeal by Bhagat & another by Lutawan. The aforementioned appeals were registered as Appeal No.641/689, 642/690, 643/691. The petitioner was impleaded as opposite party in the aforementioned appeals. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation allowed the appeal No.641/689 filed by respondent No.4/Madan and dismissed the Appeal No.642/690 filed by Bhagat as well as Appeal No.643/691 filed by Lutawan. By the order of the Appellate Court dated 21.12.2011, 1/2 share given to the petitioner in plot no.155/166 has also been taken away. Against the appellate order dated 21.12.2011, the petitioner has filed revision, under Section 48(1) of U.P.C.H. Act, which was registered as Revision No.510/762 and two more revisions- one by Kishore and others and another by Bhagat and others were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. All the three revisions were clubbed together, and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 31.01.2017, dismissed the revisions. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner/ Sudama Yadav for following relief:-

" Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari call for the record of the case and quash the order dated 08.10.1997 passed by the respondent no.3 (Consolidation officer District Kushinagar) and order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the respondent No.2 (Settlement officer of consolidation Kushinagar District Kushinagar) and order dated 31.10.2017 passed by respondent no.1 (Deputy Director of Consolidation Kushinagar) in Revision No.510/762 ( Annexure No.5, 7 and 9 to this writ petition)."

3. This Court entertained the matter on 5.5.2017, issued notice to the unrepresented private respondents but no interim order was granted in the instant writ petition.

4. Parties have exchanged their affidavit in the aforementioned writ petition. 

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that predecessors of the petitioner were recorded in the basic year of the consolidation operation as such the name of the predecessors of the petitioner cannot be expunged in respect to plot in question. He submitted that the title objection filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 for recording of their names exclusively on the plot in question has been decided without notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by the Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation. He submitted that as soon as the petitioner came to know about the orders passed under Section 9A(2) & 11(1) of U.P.C.H. Act, the revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the petitioner, which has been dismissed in arbitrary manner without considering the case of the petitioner. She further submitted that in  view of the basic year entry of the plot in question, evidence on record as well as pedigree of the family set up before the consolidation authorities, the exclusive right cannot be given to private respondents in the plot in question. She submitted that different claims were set-up at every stage by the private respondent in order to get exclusive right in respect to the plot in question and the consolidation  authorities have not considered the matter in proper manner for granting exclusive right to the private respondents. She submitted that impugned orders passed by Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation should be set aside and the basic year entry of the plot in question should be maintained so that petitioners may get right & title in respect to the plot in question.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Santosh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that no interference is required against the concurrent judgments passed by the consolidation authorities. He further submitted that the Consolidation Authorities have recorded finding of facts for granting exclusive right to the private respondents, as such, no interference is required in the matter.  He submitted that entry of the plot in question as well as oral evidence adduced before the Consolidation Officer demonstrates that the private respondents are entitled to be recorded in exclusive manner.

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

8. There is no dispute about the fact that the title objection filed by the private respondents against the basic year entry for recording of their names in exclusive manner was allowed by the Consolidation Officer, which was maintained in appeal. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation.

9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the family pedigree set up before the Consolidation authorities, will be relevant for perusal, which is as under:-

" दौलत

सरल तप्पी बच्चू

शिवधर

लुटावन श्री किशुन मंगल गजाधर लीलाधर डोमा सुन्दर

किशोर

भगत फौजदार सुबेदार गुप्तार मदन चन्दर

(रेस्पॉन्डेंट संख्या-४)

सुदामा"

(पिटीशनर)

10. The pedigree as quoted above fully demonstrate that petitioner/Sudama is from the branch of Sunder and Respondent No.4/ Madan is from the branch of Doma. Doma and Sunder both are sons of Bachchoo. It is fully established that both parties belongs to common ancestor Bachchoo. The title objection filed by private respondents claiming exclusive right has not been examined in proper manner, as such, the order passed by the Consolidation Officer granting exclusive right to the private respondents is not in accordance with law. The judgment of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation further demonstrate that there was no proper exercise of appellate & revisional jurisdiction granting exclusive right to the private respondents in respect to the plot in question, which was recorded in the basic year in the name of predecessor of both the parties.

11. Perusal of Khatauni of 1356 fasli (annexed as annexure no.1 to the writ petition) demonstrate that plot no.155, 166 etc. were recorded in the name of Bachchu son of Daulat. In the Khatauni of 1363-65 fasli, 1366-69 fasli (annexed as annexure no.3 to the writ petition) the name of Doma and Sundar predecessor of petitioner and respondent no.4 were recorded over plot no.155, 166, 20, 21 which continued upto basic year as such respondent no.4/ heirs of respondent no.4 cannot be given exclusive right in respect to plot in question.

12. Perusal of ground nos. 4 to 9 set up in the revision filed on behalf of petitioner will be relevant, which are as under:-

" 4- यह कि अधिनस्थ दोनों न्यायालयों पेश वृक्ष पर ध्यान न देते हुए खाता संख्या 278 आ०न० 155 व 166 पर तनहा नाम मदन पुत्र डोमा एवं आ०न० २० व 21 के ½ अंश मदन का नाम दर्ज करने का आदेश पारित किया है। जो पूर्णतः विधि के प्रतिकूल है। जबकि खाता संख्या 278 में मेरे पिता का नाम चन्दर उतरवादी के पिता डोमा के साथ अंकित है। दोनों अधीनस्थ न्यायालय अपने निर्णय में सेजरा खानदान में हम प्रार्थी का नाम दर्शाये हैं। और इस आधार पर हम प्रार्थी का नाम निरस्त कर मदन (उतरवारी) का तनहा नाम दर्ज करने का आदेश पारित किया है। और कौन ऐसा साक्ष्य पत्रावली में संलग्न है। जिसके अधार पर मदन का तनहा नाम अंकित किया गया है उसका कहीं भी उल्लेख नहीं है। और न ही किसी अधीनस्थ न्यायालय में चन्दर मृतक के स्थान पर हम प्रार्थी को प्रतिस्थापन ही किया गया है। दोनों अधीनस्थ न्यायालयों उतरवारी मदन व उसकी पत्नी शान्ति के मौखिक बयान को आधार मानकर व विश्वास कर बिना साक्ष्य एवं प्रमाण के हम प्रार्थी (अपिलान्ट) को मृतक मान कर हमारा भी अंश मदन में निहित कर सम्पूर्ण अंश मदन को तनहा दर्ज करने का आदेश पारित कर भारी भूल किया है। अपीलीय न्यायालय सहायक बन्दो० अधिकारी को भी यह देखना चाहिए था कि चकबन्दी अधिकारी द्वारा किस वजह से किस साक्ष्य को आधार मानकर हम अपिलान्ट का नाम अपने आदेश दिनाँक 08-10-1997 द्वारा निरस्त कर उत्तरवादी का तनहा नाम दर्ज करने का आदेश पारित किया है। जबकि सहायक बन्दोबस्त अधिकारी ने चकबन्दी अधिकारी का आदेश दिनाँक 08.10.97 में सशोधन करते हुए यह कह कर आदेश पारित किया है कि चूंकि मदन अकेले अपील किया है इसलिए सुदामा का नाम खारिज कर मदन का नाम तनहा अंकित किया जा रहा है।

5- यह कि अधीनस्थ न्यायालयों को किसी भी लिखित खातेदार का नाम खारिज करने के लिए लिखित साक्ष्यों को ही आधार बनाना चाहिए न कि मौखिक साक्ष्य को आधार बनाना चाहिए।

6- यह कि उत्तरवादी अपने लिखित बहस में चकबन्दी न्यायालय में यह कह दिया कि बच्चू के दो लड़‌के डोमा व सुन्दर थे। चूंकि सुन्दर के खानदान मे सुदामा नावल्द मौत कर गया और मदन की औरत अपने बयान मे कह दिया कि चन्दर का कोई ओलाद नही है और इसी पर विश्वास कर अधीनस्थ न्यायालयों ने मदन का नाग तनहा दर्ज करने का आदेश पारित कर दिया जो निरस्त होने योग्य है। शान्ति का बयान व बहस एक दूसरे के विरुद्ध है।

7- यह कि विवादित खाता के अतिरिक्त शेष सभी भूमि पर हम अपिलान्ट का नाम उत्तरवादी के साथ अंकित है और तनहा भी नाम अंकित है।

8- यह कि अधीनस्थ न्यायालयों ने प्रश्नगत आदेश पारित करते समय अपने न्यायिक मस्तिष्क का प्रयोग किये बिना सरसरी तौर पर उतरवादी के प्रभाव में आकर निर्णय पारित किया है जो निरस्त होने योग्य है।

9- यह कि चकबन्दी अधिकारी ने गाटा सं० 155/84डि० व 166/84डि० पर आदेश दिनांक 8-10-97 द्वारा हम अपिलान्ट का नाम खारिज कर मदन का तनहा नाम दर्ज करने का आदेश पारित किया है और यही आदेश सहायक बन्दोबस्त अधिकारी आदेश दिनांक 21-12-11 दिया गया है। जिसको निरस्त कर हम गाटों पर मदन के साथ हम अपिलान्ट का नाम दर्ज किया जाना आवश्यक है तथा बटवारा ½ अंश मदन व ½ अंश सुदामा गाटा नं० 155/84डि० 166/84डि० में व गाटा संख्या 20 व 21 में मदन के साथ मदन का ¼ अंश व सुदामा का ¼ अंश संशोधित किया जाना आवश्यक है।

9- यह कि हम अपिलान्ट को चकबन्दी अधिकारी व सहायक बन्दोबस्त अधिकारी के न्यायालय से आदेश के पूर्व कोई सम्मन नोटिस नहीं भेजा गया और न ही हम प्रार्थी को सुनवाई का अवसर ही दिया गया। सहायक बन्दोबस्त अधिकारी के आदेश दिनांक 21.12.11 के अनुपालन चुपके-चुपके कराकर हम प्रार्थी के कब्जा दखल में हस्तक्षेप उत्तरवादी द्वारा किया गया है। तो हम अपिलान्ट न्यायालय आकर दिनांक 20-03-14 को रुल 109 वाली पत्रावळी का मुआइना कराया तो पता चला कि हम अपिलान्ट के विरूद्ध चकबन्दी अधिकारी ने दिनांक 8-10-98 व सहायक बन्दोबस्त अधिकारी ने दिनांक 20-12-11 को आदेश पारित किया है। तब हम प्रार्थी माननीय उपसंचालक चकबन्दी अधिकारी के यहां पत्रावली से आदेश दिनाँक 8.10.97 व 21.12.11 नकल दिनाँक 3.4.04 किया व समस्त फर्जी जालसाजी का पता चला तब हम प्रार्थी निगरानी दाखिल कर रहा हूं। निगरानी दाखिल करने में हम प्रार्थी ने जानबूझकर विलम्ब नहीं किया है। इसलिए धारा 5 मियाद अधिनियम का लाभ पाने का अधिकारी है।"

13. Perusal of the grounds of revision as quoted above and order of consolidation authorities demonstrate that different stand have taken at different stage for granting exclusive right to respondent no.4, without considering the grounds set up in the grounds of revision filed on behalf of petitioner which is not proper exercise of jurisdiction by consolidation authorities.

14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 8.10.1997, 21.12.2011, 31.01.2017 passed by the respondent No.3, 2, 1 respectively cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as such, same are hereby set aside.

15. The writ petition stands allowed and the basic year entry of the plot in question is hereby maintained.

16. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 15.5.2025

SFH