Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 179 (ALL)

Arjun v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Bbk.

2016-01-13

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Shri Vijay Bahadur Verma learned counsel for the petitioner and A.K. Verma learned counsel for the contesting respondent. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25.03.2011 passed in the title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 3. The dispute between the parties was in respect of inheritance of property of Smt. Rukana alias Manjhawati wife of Shriram, daughter of Chandi. It is alleged that earlier an objection under Section 9-A of the U.P. C.H. Act was jointly filed by Sarvajeet s/o Shriram (now represented by the petitioner) and Ram Swarup s/o Ram Autar and Ram Milan s/o Ram Dayal (opposite party no.2) on the basis of registered Will dated 16.03.1992, allegedly executed by Smt. Rukana alias Manjhawati in their favour. Consolidation Officer by order dated 01.02.1996 allowed the objection and directed for recording the names of aforesaid three persons as legal representatives of Smt. Rukana alias Manjhawati. 4. Thereafter, Kanhai and Gogey filed an application for recall of the order dated 01.02.1996 which was allowed on 19.03.1996 and order dated 01.02.1996 was recalled. In the meantime the village was de-notified under Section 52 of the Act and Sarvajeet got his name recorded as sole heir of Smt. Rukana alias Manjhawati by the order of Supervisor Kanoongo on the basis of report of P.A.-11-A. Thereafter, Sarvajeet executed a sale deed dated 13.03.2007 in favour of Dr. Shashi Bala Kanojia, who is now transposed as (petitioner no.4). 5. Subsequently, Sarvajeet also filed an application for recall of the order dated 01.02.1996. Consolidation Officer by order dated 08.09.2009 allowed the said application of Sarvajeet on the costs of Rs. 200/- and fixed date for further proceeding in the case. The order of Consolidation Officer dated 08.09.2009 was challenged in Revision No.1053 by Ram Milan and others (respondent nos. 2 to 9). The said revision was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 25.03.2011. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, by the impugned order, found that signatures of Sarvajeet in the original objection as well as in the order dated 01.02.1996 and in the affidavit filed in support of recall application dated 08.06.2009, were fully tallying. As such the order dated 01.02.1996 is not liable to be recalled on the application of Sarvajeet. 7. 6. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, by the impugned order, found that signatures of Sarvajeet in the original objection as well as in the order dated 01.02.1996 and in the affidavit filed in support of recall application dated 08.06.2009, were fully tallying. As such the order dated 01.02.1996 is not liable to be recalled on the application of Sarvajeet. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. 8. Admittedly, the issue relating to inheritance of property of Smt. Rukana alias Manjhawati, is still to be decided by the Consolidation Officer. As order dated 01.02.1996 has been already recalled by order dated 19.03.1996 and the matter is still pending before the Consolidation Officer as such no fresh order was required to be passed again. Issue is as to whether Sarvajeet has filed joint objection along with Ram Autar and Ram Milan, or not or rights of Sarvajeet, who is now being deriving of his title by way of inheritance under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and not on the basis of Will dated 16.03.1996 has to be decided afresh after taking evidence of the parties and findings recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order is relevant only for deciding recall application and not objection on merit. In case execution of the Will is proved then natural heirs under Section 171 will be deprived, otherwise the property will go to natural heirs. Thus at present the rights of Sarvajeet depend upon proof of due execution of the Will. 9. It is provided that Sarvajeet may contest the case before the Consolidation Officer, who may entertain the objection of Sarvajeet and after framing issues allow him to adduce evidence. Thereafter, he will decide the matter in accordance with law on its own merit. 10. Since both the parties are appearing before this Court, they may appear before the Consolidation Officer in the first week of February, 2016, who shall ensure that the notices be issued to all the necessary parties and proceed to decide the case expeditiously, as directed by this court earlier. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.