Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2299 (ALL)

Ganga Ram v. D. D. C.

2014-08-02

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Heard Shri Manu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot no. 370 of Village Ambehta Chand, Pargana Nagal and Tehsil Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur. 3. It appears that this plot was recorded in the name of Bhikku and Tikku in the basic year. On the start of consolidation operations, in title proceedings between the recorded tenure-holders and one Narsingh son of Suchet, the plots in dispute were finally ordered to be recorded in the name of Narsingh. 4. It appears that this Order has Become final. During the pendency of these title proceedings, Bhikku and Tikku executed a sale deed of the disputed property in favour of one Phool Singh. 5. The petitioners claim on the basis of her sale deed in their favour from bhikku and Dikku. The respondent on the contrary are the vendees of the Narsingh. It is, therefore, clear that since in title proceedings, the plot in question has been held to belong Narsingh. The petitioners claim through Bhikku and Dikku cannot at any right or interest in the plot in question on the basis of the final orders in title proceedings. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.8.1999 has directed that the plot no. 370 area 0-19-0 included in chak no. 313 be recorded in the name of Dharam Singh son of Jay Singh after expunging the name of Narsingh. Dharam Singh is respondent no. 4 in the instant writ petition, who claims on the basis of a sale deed executed in his favour by Narsingh. 6. The revision filed by the petitioners had been dismissed by the order which is impugned in the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contented that no rights could accrue in favour of the contesting respondents on the basis of the sale deed executed by Narsingh because such sale deed was executed during the pendency of the title proceedings and in fact during the pendency of such proceedings the valuation of plot no. 370 had been included in the chak of Bhikku and Tikku. 8. The petitioners claim on the basis of a sale deed in their favour from Bhikku and Tikku. The respondents on the contrary are the vendees of the Narsingh. 370 had been included in the chak of Bhikku and Tikku. 8. The petitioners claim on the basis of a sale deed in their favour from Bhikku and Tikku. The respondents on the contrary are the vendees of the Narsingh. It is, therefore, clear that since in title proceedings, the plot in question has been held to belong Narsingh, the petitioners claim based on a sale deed from Bhikku and Tikku, cannot confer any right, title or interest in their favour, in view of the final order passed in the title proceedings in favour of Narsingh and against Bhikku and Tikku and, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit. 9. In view of the categorical finding that the petitioners claim through Bhikku and Tikku, who have been found to have no right title or interest in plot no. 370 while on the other hand the respondents claim on the basis of a sale deed executed by the petitioners whose title over the plot no. 370 has been upheld there appears no illegality in the impugned order. 10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that he has entitled to certain valuation in his chak which has not been provided to him. However, this ground cannot be in basis of challenging the order impugned. 11. In case, the petitioners are entitled to any valuation over and above their claim on the basis of sale deed executed by Bhikku and Tikku, it will be open for them to apply for the same by means of a proper application/ objection in this regard. The petitioners, however, are not entitled to any valuation if their claim are based only on the sale deed in their favour executed through Bikku and Tikku. 12. Accordingly and subject to the above directions/ observations, this writ petition is dismissed.