Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1778 (ALL)

NIRANJAN v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

2007-07-03

S.K.SINGH

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Singh, J.—By means of this writ petition petitioners have challenged the judgments of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 19.4.1988 and 16.6.1982. 2. For disposal of writ petition the facts in brief will suffice : Land in dispute was recorded in the basic year records in the name of Gopal son of Bal Mukund who was father of petitioners. Objection was filed by the respondent side on the ground that the entry of the petitioners side is wrong as from before zamindari abolition, the land in dispute was of their mohal and it was grove and is still grove and they are in possession. The land was recorded in their name over which Gopal got his name recorded in collusion with Lekhpal to which they could not get any knowledge. Gopal filed written statement for protecting his entry/right on the grounds that before zamindari abolition the land in dispute might have been the grove but since long it is not in such condition and he having come in possession which is clear from the entry in his favour and having not been evicted within a period of three years as provided in law became Sirdar. Consolidation Officer maintained the entry in favour of the petitioners and objection of the opposite party was rejected. Appeals were filed by the respondent side which was allowed and the basic year entry was directed to be expunged upon which petitioners filed revision which was dismissed and thus to challenge the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer Consolidation this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Courts below have wrongly discarded the order of the Sub Divisional Officer by which name of the petitioners’ father was directed to be recorded and they have also wrongly discarded continuance of revenue entry in favour of the petitioner side. Submission is that they have also wrongly discarded the entry of Z A Form 101 and 110. Consolidation Officer found that there is no grove on the spot and the rights of the opposite parties, if any, stood extinguished. The Consolidation Officer further found that in 1359 Fasli Gopal was entered in possession and in 1366-67 Fasli name of Gopal came in C.L.R.D. proceedings on account of preparation of Form ZA 101. Consolidation Officer found that there is no grove on the spot and the rights of the opposite parties, if any, stood extinguished. The Consolidation Officer further found that in 1359 Fasli Gopal was entered in possession and in 1366-67 Fasli name of Gopal came in C.L.R.D. proceedings on account of preparation of Form ZA 101. It is submitted that the appellate authority and the revisional Court has not taken into account facts correctly and the evidence in support of the petitioners claim and thus they have wrongly negatived the petitioners right. It is on these premises submission is that judgment of two Courts needs interference. 4. In response to the aforesaid Counsel for the respondent submits that the entry in the name of Gopal was clearly fictitious and was a result of manipulation. There was no proceeding under Section 240-G of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and there was no opportunity to the recorded person. There are two orders directing amaldaramad in favour of Gopal but none have any case number etc. on the basis of which petitioners claims right. It is submitted that claim of the petitioners is solely based on adverse possession whereas the respondents are admittedly recorded person and it was shown as their grove and thus for extension of his rights, petitioners will have to prove that in competent proceedings in the competent Court after an opportunity to the respondents they succeeded and thus if two Courts have negatived petitioner’s claim then no exception can be taken to it. Submission is that Courts below on a proper analysis and assessment of the oral and documentary evidence have recorded the findings which being finding of fact needs no interference of this Court 5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has examined the merits in the submission of both sides. Two Courts have referred to the old revenue entries from which it is clear that land in dispute was grove. Entries of 1328 Fasli 1330 Fasli clearly indicates the nature of the land as grove. In 1359 Fasli grove is mentioned. At what point of time and how the grove disappeared has not been proved by the petitioner side. Name of Gopal came to be recorded initially vide C.L.R.D. Proceedings which is admittedly summary proceeding having only purpose of getting the land revenue in favour of the State. In 1359 Fasli grove is mentioned. At what point of time and how the grove disappeared has not been proved by the petitioner side. Name of Gopal came to be recorded initially vide C.L.R.D. Proceedings which is admittedly summary proceeding having only purpose of getting the land revenue in favour of the State. The order in favour of any party in C.L.R.D. proceeding cannot be decisive for accepting the title. Form ZA 101 is neither filed in original nor any copy of the same. Both Courts have mentioned that there being no document either original or otherwise of Form ZA 101 being available in the record only amaldaramad in the revenue extract is to be taken note. It has been further held that so far amaldaramad in the name of Gopal is concerned there appears to be two orders showing its amaldaramad i.e. dated 30.7.1959 accepting Gopal to be sirdar and then dated 31.3.1961 accepting him to be bhumidhar. Courts have taken the view that in either of the amaldaramad neither any case number is mentioned nor any other details is given and, therefore, it is not clear that in what proceedings and from competent Court the orders directing amaldaramad in favour of Gopal was passed. If the land in dispute was grove at one point of time and there is no evidence that when grove disappeared then even by possession of few years petitioner side may not become bhumidhar under Section 20 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and at the most he could have claimed asami of the grove. In respect to the proceedings under Section 240-G of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act it has been found that there is nothing on record that any proceeding took place and recorded persons received opportunity to file objections and, therefore, proceedings under Section 240-G of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act and Form ZA 101 having not been proved to have actually taken place the amaldaramad in the name of Gopal can not get valid shape. There is just amaldaramad without there being any copy of the order and even having no case number of any case and there being two orders dated 30.7.1959 and 31.3.1961 directing amaldaramad as sirdar and the other as bhumidhar which in law cannot go together. There is just amaldaramad without there being any copy of the order and even having no case number of any case and there being two orders dated 30.7.1959 and 31.3.1961 directing amaldaramad as sirdar and the other as bhumidhar which in law cannot go together. Courts below have referred to oral evidence adduced by the parties and the documentary evidence have been also taken into account. Orders in favour of the petitioner side and amaldaramad based thereon have been rejected by assigning reasons which on the facts cannot be said to be superfluous or vitiated in law. The reasons assigned by the Courts in not accepting the correctness of the amaldaramad entry in favour of the petitioner side can be accepted to be valid, correct and acceptable in the eyes of law. The land in dispute having been recorded in the old records to be grove of the respondent side, two Courts have rightly mentioned that when grove disappeared and when adverse possession of the petitioner side started and whether order of amaldaramad was after an opportunity to the respondent side has not been proved. There is no document/evidence to demonstrate the payment of any compensation to the grove holder. A portion of the land is still recorded as grove. In respect to the entry in the name of the petitioners the Deputy Director of Consolidation has further mentioned that there is no reference of any rojnamcha. Two Courts having carefully examined the merits in various revenue entries in the light of the evidence also, on a scrutiny has not been found to be either perverse or erroneous in any manner. Finding of fact recorded by the three Courts has not been demonstrated to be vitiated. This Court is not to reassess and re-evaluate the entire oral and documentary evidence to arrive at different conclusion. No evidence has been shown to have been ignored from being considered and no misinterpretation of oral and documentary evidence has been pointed out. Findings recorded by both the Courts are based on evidence and thus the name of the petitioners which is based on few years entry of possession against the old recorded person over the land which was one time a grove, if has been directed to be expunged by the two Courts then this Court is not to interfere. Findings recorded by both the Courts are based on evidence and thus the name of the petitioners which is based on few years entry of possession against the old recorded person over the land which was one time a grove, if has been directed to be expunged by the two Courts then this Court is not to interfere. On a careful examination it is clear that no question of law arises for consideration in this writ petition and thus writ petition is to fail. For the reasons given above, writ petition fails and is dismissed. ————