Rasheed Ahmad vs Assistant Director Cons. Sultanpur And ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 12762 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rasheed Ahmad vs Assistant Director Cons. Sultanpur And ... on 19 November, 2025

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:75410
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
WRIT - B No. - 15 of 1998   
 
   Rasheed Ahmad    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Assistant Director Cons. Sultanpur And Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
J.C.Srivastava, D.C.Mukerjee, M.A. Siddiqui, M.S. Siddiqui, Mohd Salim Siddiqui, O.N. Tripathi, Surendra Singh, Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Vijay Kumar Mishra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C., Aftab Ahmad, Atul Mohan Gupta, M.A.Siddiqui, Mohammad Adil Khan, Ram Kushal Tiwari, Ram Lagan Misra, S.P.Tiwari   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 5
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.      

1. Heard Sri Usuf Safi, Advocate holding brief of Sri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Ram Kushal Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3/2 to 3/4.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that dispute in the present case pertains to Khata No. 321/1, situated in Village - Itkauli Barosa, Sultanpur. It is next submitted that present dispute pertains to co-tenancy rights of the petitioners alongwith private respondents with regard to the disputed property. It is further submitted that original tenure holder of the disputed property was one Mohd. Falah, who had four sons namely Menhdi Hasan, Mehboob Ali, Nasir Ali and Fateh Ali. It is submitted that after death of Mohd. Falah, the property continued to devolve upon the legal heirs of Mohd. Falah and lastly in Fasli year 1362 the land was recorded in the names of the descendants of Mohd. Falah. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the controversy in the present case has commenced after Fasli year 1362. It is stated that from Fasli year 1363 names of the co-tenure holders alongwith petitioners and private respondents were deleted and land was recorded in the names of "Adivasies" being actual tillers of the disputed land.

3. It has been next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that after coming into effect of the provisions of Section 240 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, where substantial rights came to be settled in favour of "Adivasies" who were in actual cultivatory possession of the land, were to be declared Bhoomidhars. It is the persons whose names came to be recorded in Fasli year 1963, were declared Bhoomidhars and have obtained Bhoomidhari rights and further it is stated that the said persons had moved application for deletion of their names and for recording name of Sirajuddin (respondent no. 3) in their place. It seems that the application preferred by the "Adivasies" was allowed and that is how name of Sirajuddin (respondent no. 3) came to be recorded in the revenue records.

4. It is at this stage, the petitioners, who were co-tenure holders of the disputed land and whose names were entered in the revenue records prior to 1963 Fasli raised dispute before the Consolidation Officer and filed their objections and claiming right, title and interest over the disputed land, on the ground that previously, in the revenue records their names were entered as co-tenants alongwith the private respondents and predecessor in interest of the private respondents. The application of the petitioners was duly considered by the Consolidation Officer under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and after consideration of the aforesaid facts, he rejected the application of the petitioners and held that the land has correctly been recorded in the name of Sirajuddin, whose name was reflected in the revenue records. The said order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 09.02.1984.

5. Aggrieved by order dated 09.02.1984, passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioners had preferred an appeal before the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), under Section 11(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by means of judgment and order dated 07.03.1986, again re-considered the entire facts and allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. He also took into account the fact that the property of recorded tenure holder Mohd. Falah had been divided on the basis of family settlement in the year 1920 and subsequent to which the parties were in respective possession of their lands as recorded tenure holders, but with regard to the disputed land being Khata No. 321/1, situated in Village - Itkauli Barosa, Sultanpur, the land was recorded in the name of legal heirs of Mohd. Falah, and further considered the fact that it is only in the proceedings under Section 8(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act that aspect of the land being recorded in the name of "Adivasies" has came to be entered in the revenue records and entries under Section 8(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act are not final and are merely made for correction of revenue records and merely on the basis of the entries made in exercise of power under Section 8(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, would not confer any right, title or interest over the said land and therefore Sirazuddin and subsequent persons coming under him assert their rights only on the basis of order passed under Section 8(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, by which no substantial right can flow to them and therefore allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. He has further recorded the fact that the entries were wrongly corrected and name of the co-tenure holders was illegally deleted and accordingly by means of judgment and order dated 07.03.1986, allowed the appeal of the petitioners.

6. Against judgment and order dated 07.03.1986, three revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation being Revision No. 395 (filed by Sirajuddin), Revision No. 396 (filed by the Abdul Rauf) and Revision No. 138 (filed by Abdul Hussain). All the revisions were clubbed together and decided by common judgment and order dated 26.09.1997.

7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revisions and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on coming to find that name of the revisionists was deleted in proceedings under Section 8(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and said order was never challenged by the petitioners before any Court and therefore said order attained finality and therefore no interference was required in the said order. After Fasli year 1362 the land has rightly been recorded in the name of "Adivasies" who have subsequently transferred their rights in favour of private respondents and therefore, held that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Conslidation Officer and accordingly, allowed the revisions and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 07.03.1986.

8. The petitioners before this Court have assailed the validity of order dated 26.09.1997 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It has been submitted that the facts in the present case are not disputed inasmuch as prior to Fasli year 1362, the land came to be recorded in the name of all the co-tenure holders who were descendants of Mohd. Falah who was recorded tenure holder. It is submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the land came to be recorded in the name of predecessor in interest of the petitioners and the respondents, even though could have been divested of the said land, not as a result of any legal instrument recognized by law. It is submitted that there is no document, application or order in existence which can demonstrate that the land ever came to be recorded in the name of "Adivasies" subsequent to Fasli 1362. It is only on the basis of oral assertion made by the respondent authorities that the land came to be vested in the "Adivasies" and subsequently by operation of Section 240 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act they claimed Bhoomidhari rights over the said land, which subsequently was transferred in the name of Sirajuddin being predecessor in interest of respondents.

9. It is submitted that there is neither any order existing on record or any material to evident the aforesaid circumstance and merely on the oral assertion made by the respondent authorities, which resulted in passing of impugned order dated 26.09.1997 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in favour of the private respondents.

10. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and is not based on any legal provisions or on perusal of any documentary evidence and hence prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand have supported the order dated 26.09.1997, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and submitted that undisputedly prior to Fasli 1362 name of private respondents was included alongwith petitioners over the disputed land and it is only subsequently when "Adivasi" rights were created and recorded in the revenue records who became Bhoomidhars and the land was subsequently divested by them in favour of Sirajuddin and in these circumstances name of Sirajuddin came to be recorded alone in the revenue records and there is no infirmity in the same and pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

13. The only question which requires consideration before this Court is with regard to the fact that whether there is any material available on record on the basis of which the authorities below have concluded that the petitioners were recorded as tenure holders prior to Fasly 1362 and their names were accordingly deleted and names of "Adivasies" was recorded and subsequently, it is on the basis of proceedings initiated by the "Adivasies" for deletion of their names in favour of Sirajuddin and where name of Sirajuddin was accordingly recorded in the revenue records?

14. Though aforesaid facts have been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as by the Consolidation Officer, undisputedly there is no material available on record to demonstrate the aforesaid before this Court. Once land is recorded in the name of tenure holders and revenue enteries are existing for a very long length of time, without any dispute, then presumption of such entries being correct is made. Further, before this Court no case has been set up by the respondents that co-tenure holders have ever jointly decided to transfer their rights in favour of "Adivasies" or by operation of any law, the land came to be recorded in he name of "Adivasies".

15. This aspect of the matter cannot be explained even by the respondents. There is no explanation as to how subsequent to Fasli 1362, name of "Adivasies" was recorded in the revenue records in proceedings under Sectin 8(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. This Court further finds that though it has been recorded that "Adivasies" claimed Boomidhari rights and gave up their right over the disputed land in favour of Sirajuddin, this Court do not find either any application or instrument by which the "Adivasies" gave up their rights in favour of Sirajuddin.

16. Immovable property can be divested only by an instrument prescribed by any law including Transfer of Property Act etc. Normal measures are sale deed, gift deed, will deed etc, but in the present case no attempt has been made to set up any case as to how "Adivasies" have given up their rights over the said land in favour of Sirajuddin (respondent no. 3). Without any documents or material such assertion cannot be presumed to be correct of being happened in favour of Sirajuddin or his successors in interest.

17. It is further added that this Court do not find any material either existing on record or having been considered by any of the revenue authorities in this regard. It is only on the basis of certain proceedings alleged to have taken place in exercise of power under Section 8(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act that the private respondents claim their right independently over the said land to the exclusion of the petitioners.

18. Accordingly, this Court do not find any ground to sustain rights of the private respondents, nor do this Court finds that the revenue authorities had any material or document to conclude that rights have accrued in favour of private respondents.

19. It is for the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds serious infirmity in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26.09.1997, hence same is set aside and restore the order dated 07.03.1986, passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) where property has been required to be recorded in the name of all the tenure holders.

20. In the light of above, present writ petition is allowed.

21. The authorities shall proceed to comply with the order passed by this Court and after verifying and record names of all the successors in interest of the tenure holders of the disputed land, expeditiously.

(Alok Mathur,J.)

November 19, 2025

A. Verma