Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1473 (ALL)

GOVIND RAM v. D. D. D. O. C.

2017-05-31

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar, for the petitioners. Sri W.H. Khan and Sri Rajeev Gupta, who were appearing for the respondents, have now no instructions. 2. Writ B No. - 1725 of 1980 has been filed against orders of Consolidation Officer dated 08.05.1975, Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 18.04.1978 and District Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.11.1979 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Writ B No. - 7665 of 1988 has been filed against orders of Consolidation Officer dated 16.01.1980, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 18.06.1981 and Joint Director of Consolidation dated 25.01.1988 passed in title proceeding under the Act. As both the writ petitions are between the same parties, in respect of same land as such both the writ petitions have been consolidated and heard together. 4. The dispute between the parties relates to the land recorded in khata 73 (consisting plots 776 (area 0-11-7 bigha), 832/1 (area 1-12-0 bigha), 832/3 (area 1-12-13 bigha), 865 (area 1-5-7 bigha), 1898 (area 1-4-0 bigha) and 1971 (area 0-3-13 bigha) of village Panchi, pargana Sarawa, district Meerut. In basic consolidation year, disputed khata was recorded in the names of Jal Singh, Chhote Singh sons of Tunda, Arjan son of Saiju and Chet Ram son of Puran (now represented by respondents-4 to 9) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) and names of Govind Ram and Smt. Gangadei widow of Bhadai were recorded in column-9 of the khatauni. During partal, Govind Ram and Smt. Gangadei claimed their possession over disputed land. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act, claiming their right over the disputed land on the basis of possession and prayed for deleting the names of the recorded tenure holders. They took plea that their ancestor, Ram Swarup had fours sons, namely, Bakshi, Paltu, Udami and Sukkhan. They jointly owned 12 plots, total area 27-3-0 bigha in the village. Paltu, Udami and Sukkhan shifted to Punjab and settled there. They surrendered their right in joint holdings in favour of Bakshi. After death of Bakshi, it was inherited by his son Mohan, who was inherited by his sons Sujan and Ram Jas. Ram Jas died issueless and was inherited by Govind, Bhadai and Dukhram sons of Sujan. Bhadai and Dukhram died issueless. Govind was in possession of the disputed land. 5. After death of Bakshi, it was inherited by his son Mohan, who was inherited by his sons Sujan and Ram Jas. Ram Jas died issueless and was inherited by Govind, Bhadai and Dukhram sons of Sujan. Bhadai and Dukhram died issueless. Govind was in possession of the disputed land. 5. The respondents contested the objections and also filed an objection for deleting the names of Govind Ram and Gangadei from column-9 of the khatauni. They denied the allegations of shifting of Paltu, Udami and Sukkhan to Punjab. They stated that Udami and Sukkhan died issueless and were inherited by the branches of Bakshi and Paltu. Half of the joint ancestral holding was in possession of Govind Ram and others, while remaining half share of it was in their possession and they were rightly recorded over khata in dispute. Govind Ram purchased 1/6 share of Arjan son of Sarju through sale deed dated 11.01.1968. They deposited requisite amount for obtaining bhumidari certificate of the land of their share on 06.01.1968 and bhumidhari certificate was issued to them on 27.01.1968. Since then their khata was separated in respect of the land of their share. 6. Consolidation Officer framed issues. The petitioner filed his documentary evidence and examined Govind Ram (PW-1), Nand Kishor (PW-2) and Jamuna Prasad (PW-3). The respondents filed their documentary evidence and examined Jal Singh (DW-1) and Tapraj (DW-2). Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 08.07.1975, found that there was no dispute in respect of pedigree of the parties. There is no evidence to prove that Paltu was ever dispossessed by zamindar for default in payment of rent. There is no evidence relating to partition between the parties. The petitioners could not give any reason as to how the disputed land came to be recorded in the names of descendants of Paltu after his ejectment and shifting to Punjab. Govind Ram purchased 1/6 share of Arjan son of Sarju through sale deed dated 11.01.1968. Thus he admitted title and possession of the respondents. The petitioners claimed their right on the basis of adverse possession as such title of the respondents is impliedly admitted. It is not proved that the names of the respondents were wrongly recorded over disputed land. The respondents deposited requisite amount for obtaining bhumidari certificate of the land of their share on 06.01.1968 and bhumidhari certificate was issued to them on 27.01.1968. It is not proved that the names of the respondents were wrongly recorded over disputed land. The respondents deposited requisite amount for obtaining bhumidari certificate of the land of their share on 06.01.1968 and bhumidhari certificate was issued to them on 27.01.1968. Since then the dispute was raised by the petitioners without any basis. The suit was abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act. On these findings, he dismissed the objection of the petitioners and deleted entry of column-9 of the khatauni. 7. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 915) from the aforesaid order. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, after hearing the parties, by order dated 18.08.1978, held that the petitioners could not adduce any evidence to show his continuous and exclusive possession over disputed land for the period necessary for acquisition of right by adverse possession. The order of Consolidation Officer did not suffer from any illegality. On these findings, he dismissed the appeal. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 473) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by District Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 23.11.1979, dismissed the revision. Hence Writ B No. 1725 of 1980 has been filed. 8. During pendency of the revision, the petitioners filed another objection along with delay condonation application, claiming his right on the basis of sale deed dated 11.01.1968, executed by Arjan in his favour in respect of his 1/6 share. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 16.01.1980, held that village was notified under Section 9 of the Act on 08.11.1973, while the objection was filed on 26.07.1979. There is no explanation of inordinate delay in filing the objection. On these findings, he rejected delay condonation application and dismissed the objection as time barred. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 95-A) from the aforesaid order. Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 18.06.1981 dismissed the appeal. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 2097) from the aforesaid order. Joint Director of Consolidation, dismissed revision on 25.01.1988. Hence Writ B No. 7665 of 1988 has been filed. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. So far as claim of the petitioners on the basis of adverse possession is concerned, it is admitted to the petitioners that the disputed property was ancestral property coming from the time of common ancestor Ram Swarup. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. So far as claim of the petitioners on the basis of adverse possession is concerned, it is admitted to the petitioners that the disputed property was ancestral property coming from the time of common ancestor Ram Swarup. The petitioners, in their objection, took plea that Paltu, Udami and Sukkhan sons of Ram Swarup shifted to Punjab and settled there. They surrendered their right in joint holdings in favour of Bakshi. After death of Bakshi, it was inherited by his son Mohan, who was inherited by his sons Sujan and Ram Jas. Ram Jas died issueless and was inherited by the sons of Sujan, namely Govind, Bhadai and Dukhram. Bhadai and Dukhram died issueless. Govind was in possession over the disputed land from a long time. Before Consolidation Officer he examined Nand Kishor (PW-2) and Jamuna Prasad (PW-3) who were ex-zamindars, to prove that branch of Paltu failed to pay rent of the land of their share as such they were ejected. Consolidation Officer found that there was no evidence to prove that Paltu, Udami and Sukkhan surrendered their share to his brother Bakshi nor they were ever dispossessed by zamindar for default in payment of rent. There is no evidence relating to partition between the parties. The petitioners could not give any reason as to how the disputed land came to be recorded in the names of descendants of Paltu after his shifting to Punjab and ejectment. In absence of any evidence of ouster of a co-sharer, no adverse possession can be claimed by other co-sharer. The petitioners failed to prove ejectment of Paltu or his descendants or their ouster from the disputed land. 10. Consolidation Officer further found that the respondents deposited requisite amount for obtaining bhumidari certificate of the land of their share on 06.01.1968 and bhumidhari certificate was issued to them on 27.01.1968. Since then the dispute was raised by the petitioners without any basis. The proceedings initiated under provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and suit filed under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 were abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act. Thereafter dispute was raised during consolidation. Adverse possession was no matured. Findings in this respect also does not suffer from any illegality. 11. The proceedings initiated under provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and suit filed under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 were abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act. Thereafter dispute was raised during consolidation. Adverse possession was no matured. Findings in this respect also does not suffer from any illegality. 11. However, it is admitted to the respondents that Govind Ram purchased 1/6 share of Arjan son of Sarju through sale deed dated 11.01.1968 of the disputed land. The copy of the sale deed dated 11.01.1968 was filed by the respondents. Thus execution of the sale deed was admitted to the respondents. It is well settled rule of pleading is not applicable in the proceeding under the Act and consolidation authorities are required to decide the right of the parties on the basis of evidence on record. As execution of sale deed dated 11.01.1968 was admitted to the respondents, the objection of Govind Ram was not liable to be dismissed as a whole. In any case, delay in filing the objection dated 26.07.1979 ought to have been condoned. Since execution of the sale deed dated 11.01.1968 is admitted to the respondents as such no fresh trial is required. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Writ B No.1725 of 1980 is partly allowed. The Consolidation Officer is directed to record the name of the petitioner over the land covered under the sale deed dated 11.01.1968 and give him separate possession over it and Writ B No.7665 of 1988 is disposed of.