Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1391 (ALL)

Chuttan v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Bhadohi

2015-05-26

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2015
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri B.B. Paul, for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Pandey, for respondent-16. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer, dated 08.08.2003, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 10.07.2013 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 02.03.2015, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Prior to present consolidation operation, village Baripur was placed under Consolidation operation, by notification dated 25.04.1965, under Section 4 of the Act. At that time, in basic consolidation year, the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Jai Karan (father of the petitioner) in khata 372. There was another khata 431, which was recorded in the name of Sukhdeo (father of respondent-4 and brother of Jai Karan). On the dispute being raising under Section 9 of the Act, claiming co-tenancy in the land in dispute, the parties appeared before Assistant Consolidation Officer and entered into compromise. In terms of compromise, Assistant Consolidation Officer, by order dated 10.12.1965, passed in Case No. 408, directed to record the names of Ram Nath and Sukheo over khata 372. Similarly, in terms of compromise, Assistant Consolidation Officer, by order dated 27.05.1966, passed in Case No. 1354, recorded the names of Ram Nath and Jai Karan, in khata 431. None of the parties challenged the orders of Assistant Consolidation Officer. However, later on, village was notified under Section 6 of the Act, in 1966. Ram Nath and Sukhdeo died and names of their heirs were mutated by order of Naib Tahsildar, in proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. 4. Fresh consolidation operation was initiated by notification under Section 4 of the Act, on 21.06.1982. Notification under Section 9 was issued on 20.08.1987 and Section 20 of the Act was issued on 30.09.1989. Chaks were confirmed on 05.12.1990. In the meantime, Jai Karan, father of the petitioner died and the name of the petitioner was mutated by Assistant Consolidation Officer on 12.10.1987. 4. Notification under Section 9 was issued on 20.08.1987 and Section 20 of the Act was issued on 30.09.1989. Chaks were confirmed on 05.12.1990. In the meantime, Jai Karan, father of the petitioner died and the name of the petitioner was mutated by Assistant Consolidation Officer on 12.10.1987. 4. The dispute relates to basic consolidation year, khata 323 [consisting plots 1336 (area 0-19-0 bigha), 1337 (area 1-16-0 bigha), 1339 (area 0-9-0 bigha), 1340 (area 0-10-10 bigha), 1346 (area 1-2-0 bigha), 1347 (area 0-13-16 bigha), 1349 (area 1-4-13 bigha and 1564 (area 0-10-18 bigha)] of village Baripur, pargana Bhadohi, district Sant Ravidas Nagar, Badohi, which was recorded in the names of Chhottan and Nanhakoo sons of Jai Karan, Sukhdeo and Sukhnandan sons of Kanhai. The petitioner filed a time barred objection (registered as Case No. 59/184/768) under Section 9-A of the Act, for deleting the names of other recorded tenure holders from the land in dispute, along with delay condonation application, on 05.03.2001. 5. The petitioner also filed two appeals (registered as Appeal Nos. 1823 and 1824), on 05.03.2001 from the aforesaid orders of Assistant Consolidation Officer, dated 10.12.1965 and 27.05.1966. Both the appeals were consolidated and heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 21.11.2002 held that there is no explanation of inordinate delay of 33 years in filing of the appeal. The village was again placed under consolidation operation in 1982 and the petitioner has filed his objection under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before Consolidation Officer. The appeals were not maintainable. On these findings the appeals were dismissed. 6. The objection (Case No. 59/184/768) of the petitioner was heard by Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 08.08.2003 held that at the time of partal, the petitioner did not raise any dispute for deleting the names of other recorded persons from khata in dispute. Father of the petitioner died and the name of the petitioner was mutated by order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 12.10.1987 as such his contention that he had no knowledge of the entry of the names of other person was not liable to be believed. Thus there is no explanation of inordinate delay. On these findings the objection was dismissed. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 184/786) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was dismissed in default on 11.05.2006. Thus there is no explanation of inordinate delay. On these findings the objection was dismissed. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 184/786) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was dismissed in default on 11.05.2006. The petitioner filed an application for recall of the order dated 11.05.2006, which was dismissed on 27.04.2011. The petitioner again filed a recall application on 04.05.2011. Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 10.07.2013, rejected the recall application and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 120/2014-15) against the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 02.03.2015, dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in dispute was exclusively recorded in the name Jai Karan, father of the petitioner, since before 1356 F and continued up to 1371 F, i.e. at the time of previous consolidation. The names of Sukhdeo, Sukhnandan and Ram Nath were surreptitiously recorded by Assistant Consolidation Officer, on 27.05.1966, on the basis of forged compromise. The petitioner and his father were rustic villagers and could never know about this forged entry before 04.03.2001. Fraud vitiates every action. In the circumstances, delay in filing objection and appeal were liable to be condoned. The Consolidation Officer has illegally refused to condone the delay and dismissed the objection as time barred. Settlement Officer Consolidation has illegally held that the appeal was not maintainable, although this Court in Sahab Singh Vs. Rameshwar, 1978 AWR 735 and Pheku Vs. Joint Director of Consolidation and others, 1981 ALJ 1233 held that the appeal is maintainable against the order dismissing the objection as time barred. Deputy Director of Consolidation has not adverted to the various grounds raised by the petitioner and dismissed the revision by a cryptic order. The orders of consolidation authorities are illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The respondents, in their counter objection have alleged that Sukhdeo, Sukhnandan and Jai Karan were real brothers. There was another khata 431, which was recorded in the name of Sukhdeo (father of respondent-4). Land of both the khatas were joint ancestral property. On the dispute being raised under Section 9 of the Act, claiming co-tenancy in the land in dispute by unrecorded member of the family, the parties entered into compromise. There was another khata 431, which was recorded in the name of Sukhdeo (father of respondent-4). Land of both the khatas were joint ancestral property. On the dispute being raised under Section 9 of the Act, claiming co-tenancy in the land in dispute by unrecorded member of the family, the parties entered into compromise. In terms of compromise, Assistant Consolidation Officer, by order dated 10.12.1965, passed in Case No. 408, directed for recording the names of Ram Nath and Sukheo over khata 372 (present disputed khata). Similarly, in terms of compromise, Assistant Consolidation Officer, by order dated 27.05.1966, passed in Case No. 1354, directed for recording the names of Ram Nath and Jai Karan, in khata 431. Thus it is proved that name of Jai Karan was recorded over the land in dispute, in representative capacity on joint family property. None of the parties challenged the orders of Assistant Consolidation Officer. Jai Karan, father of the petitioner, was alive, even at the time of present consolidation. He, during his life time, never challenged the orders of Assistant Consolidation Officer. After his death, the name of the petitioner was mutated by order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 12.10.1987 over the land in dispute. New chaks were confirmed on 05.12.1990. While present objection was filed on 05.03.2001. Thus the allegation of the petitioner that he could not know about the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer was false. In these circumstances, allegations made by the petitioner for condonation of delay has been disbelieved by all the consolidation authorities. Finding of fact recorded by consolidation authorities, in respect of sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay is not liable to be interfered by this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. So far as observations of Settlement Officer Consolidation that the appeal was not maintainable, is concerned, in view of there being no explanation of inordinate delay in filing the objection and dismissal of appeal and recall application in default, he has rejected the recall application. Additional observation, regarding maintainability of the appeal does not improve the right of the petitioner. Similarly observation of Consolidation Officer that after issue of notification under Section 6 of the Act, order of Assistant Consolidation Officer has become irrelevant, is also incorrect. Additional observation, regarding maintainability of the appeal does not improve the right of the petitioner. Similarly observation of Consolidation Officer that after issue of notification under Section 6 of the Act, order of Assistant Consolidation Officer has become irrelevant, is also incorrect. The order of Assistant Consolidation Officer has not been challenged by any party as such under Section 6 (2) of the Act, such an order is valid and can be given effect to. In fact, names of the respondents, which were recorded by order of Assistant Consolidation Officer were continued up this consolidation. 10. In view of above, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.