Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3948 (ALL)

Lallan v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Gonda

2015-12-11

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2015
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Vijay Pratap for the petitioner. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order dated 28.9.2015 by which revision filed by the contesting opposite party was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the dispute between the parties afresh. 3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of inheritance of Ati Ullah son of Idu. Petitioners are the brother's son of Ati Ullah. After the death of Ati Ullah one Smt. Haleema filed an objection under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1953 for recording her name as widow of Ati Ullah. The petitioners contested the matter and claimed that they were heirs of Ati Ullah. During pendency of the objection it is stated that Smt. Haleema died and thereafter the petitioners adduced the evidence that after the death of Smt. Haleema they being the preferential heirs under Section 171 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 and the Consolidation Officer by order dated 8.9.2008 allowed the objection of the petitioners and directed for recording their names as heirs of Ati Ullah. Thereafter a time barred appeal was filed by the contesting respondents claiming themselves to be married daughters of Ati Ullah. The petitioners contested the appeal. The settlement Officer, Consolidation after hearing the parties by order dated 30.11.2011 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Therafter he heard the appeal on merit and by order dated 27.6.2014 found that as Smt. Haleema herself in her objection had stated that she had no son or daughter as such the claim of the appellants being daughters of Ati Ullah is not liable to be accepted. Otherwise also the birth of different daughters alleged to have taken place at different place and they had taken education at different places, which appears to be doubtful. On this finding he dismissed the appeal. The contesting respondents filed a revision which was heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 28.9.2015 found that in the statements of Pradhan etc. as alleged is not on the record of Consolidation Officer. Thus, it is not correct to say that according to the evidence of the petitioners Ati Ullah had no daughters. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 28.9.2015 found that in the statements of Pradhan etc. as alleged is not on the record of Consolidation Officer. Thus, it is not correct to say that according to the evidence of the petitioners Ati Ullah had no daughters. Since the appellants were claiming to be daughters of Ati Ullah as such they would be given opportunity to contest their case and on this finding he allowed the revision and set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation and remanded the matter to the Consolidation officer for deciding the dispute between the parties after taking evidence and hearing them. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 4. So far as the admission of Smt. Haleema in the objection is concerned, Smt. Haleema has stated that she had no son or daughter. The contesting respondents are claiming that they are daughters of Ati Ullah from his previous wife whether after the death of his previous wife the appellants took the case that they were married daughters of Ati Ullah and their mother had died during the life time of Ati Ullah. In the old age Ati Ullah used to reside in the house of Aashiya Begum, his elder daughter at A, 1852, Indira Nagar, Lucknow and handed over landed property to his elder brother from who he used to take some share in the crop. When he came to the village, all of a sudden he had died . Although he in his lifetime has executed a will dated 8.7.1986 in favour his daughters. 5. So far as the delay in filing the application for recording the name of contesting respondents is concerned they are claiming to be married daughters of Ati Ullah and at the time of death of Ati Ullah if his brother was not alive they were preferential heirs of Ati Ullah in preference to the petitioners. Thus, inheritance is natural, even if their will is ignored in view of Section 171 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 and the delay is immaterial. In any case delay has already been condoned by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and that order has become final between the parties. 6. Thus, inheritance is natural, even if their will is ignored in view of Section 171 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 and the delay is immaterial. In any case delay has already been condoned by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and that order has become final between the parties. 6. So far as the issue as to whether the contesting respondents are daughters of Ati Ullah is concerned it can be decided after taking oral and documentary evidence of the parties and on the basis of admission of Smt. Haleema in her objection this issue cannot be decided. In such circumstances, this court is not inclined to interference in the matter. By the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation the petitioners have opportunity to contest the mater before the Consolidation Officer. 7. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of.