Uttarakhand High Court
Gufran vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 8 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:3677
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1296 of 2025
Gufran ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ... Respondents
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Nailwal, Standing Counsel, for the State.
Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate, for the respondent no. 2.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Petitioner has challenged judgment and order
dated 7.4.2025, passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar in Revision No. 55/23-
24, whereby name of respondent no. 3 (Rihana) was
directed to be mutated in respect of Chak No. 82 and 83
situate in Village Makhanpur and Chak No. 59 situate in
Village Shahpur, in place of her mother, late Mrs.
Jaitoon. The said judgment was rendered in proceedings
under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 read with Rule 109 of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Rules, 1954. In the impugned judgment,
Deputy Director of Consolidation has referred to the
judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 2584 of 2007, for mutating the name
of respondent no. 3 in place of her late mother. Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 2584 of 2007 was filed by respondent
no. 3 (Ms. Rihana), in which a finding was returned by
coordinate Bench that after death of her mother, Ms.
Rihana would succeed to the interest of her mother in
the land in question. Since petitioner had also staked
2025:UHC:3677
claim over the land belonging to late Jaitoon (mother of
respondent no. 3), therefore, coordinate Bench
considered and discussed the rival claims made by
petitioner and Ms. Rihana. Relevant extract of the
judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2584 of
2007 is reproduced below:
"According to Sub-clause (b), on its
simple reading, on a devolvement of right on a
widow on the death of her husband and if she
dies, then the property would revert back to
the nearest surviving heirs, such as being heir
provided under Section 171 "of last male
bhumidhar or asami".
On consideration of the aforesaid
provision, in the case at hand, the last male
bhumidhar would be the late husband of the
female bhumidhar Jaitoon, who had died and
surviving heir of Jaitoon as classified under
Section 171 would be the petitioner, i.e. the
married daughter given under Clause (g) of
Section 171.
In that view of the matter, since the
respondent claims himself to be the son of
Yasheen, he claims that the property would
devolved upon him, being the son of the
brother, i.e. nephew. Over here the
chronology of succession which has chanced is
that after death of Khalil Ahemed, the husband
of Jaitoon, she became bhumidhar under
Section 171 as succeeding as widow of
Bhumidhar and if by implication of Sub-section
(b) of Section 172, the brother's son will not
fall to be within the class of heir contemplated
either under Sections 171 or 172.
Thus, the respondent who got
himself recorded on the basis of the impugned
order, since does not fall to be within the class
of succession of heir to be succeeding under
Sections 171 and 172 of the Act has got no
right whatsoever."
2. The aforesaid judgment, rendered by
coordinate Bench of this Court was challenged by filing
SLP, which was dismissed by Apex Court on 22.10.2018.
2025:UHC:3677
After the determination of rights made by coordinate
Bench, petitioner cannot claim any right qua the land
which belonged to late Mrs. Jaitoon. Thus the grievance
raised by the petitioner against the judgment of Deputy
Director of Consolidation, which simply directs to record
the name of Rihana (daughter of late Jaitoon) in the
revenue records, is unfounded.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that respondent no. 3 never moved application under
Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and
no new rights can be created under the provision
contained in Rule 109-A of the 1954 Rules read with
Section 52(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
4. Learned State Counsel points out that
Consolidation Officer passed an order in proceedings
under Section 9A(2) in favour of petitioner, which was
challenged by respondent no. 3 in an appeal under
Section 11(1) of the aforesaid Act, which was dismissed.
Orders passed in said proceedings were thereafter
challenged by respondent no. 3 in Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 2584 of 2007, which was decided in her favour.
Thus he submits that Deputy Director of Consolidation
was justified in giving effect to the determination made
by coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 2584 of 2007.
5. Since Ms. Rihana (respondent no. 3 herein)
acquired right in the property of Mrs. Jaitoon by virtue of
being her daughter, which fructified upon death of her
mother, therefore the contention put forth by learned
Counsel for the petitioner that Ms. Rihana do not have
any right in the property of her mother, is misconceived
2025:UHC:3677
and not acceptable. In fact, petitioner does not have any
right in the property left behind by the mother of Ms.
Rihana. Thus the challenge thrown by petitioner to the
judgment rendered by Revisional Court is without any
substance.
6. In such view of the matter, there is no scope
for interference with the impugned judgment. Writ
petition thus fails and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
8.5.2025
Pr
PRABODH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c5060
2ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503,
KUMAR
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806
ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53,
cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2025.05.15 18:06:46 +05'30'
