Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 70 (ALL)

Surajpal Singh v. State of U. P.

2018-01-08

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Salil Kumar Rai, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Indramani Kushwaha, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6 as well as learned Standing Counsel, who represents respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed praying for writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 10. 4. 2003, 23. 9. 2002 and 27.12.1997 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Budaun, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District Budaun and Consolidation Officer, Wazirganj, District Budaun i.e. respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, respectively. 3. The facts of the case are that during the consolidation operation in the village, respondent nos. 5 and 6 filed an objection before respondent no. 4 praying that their names may be recorded on the disputed property i. e. plot no. 667 situated in village Mohammadpur, Tehsil Bisauli, District Budaun as their father Narain was a co-sharer of the said plot along with Mohan Lal and both of them had half share in the disputed property. On the aforesaid objection of respondent nos. 5 and 6, case No. 895/1997-98 was registered before the Consolidation Officer i. e. respondent no. 4. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner, Surajpal Singh, purchased the disputed property from Mohan Lal through a registered sale deed dated 12. 2. 1988. The petitioner and his predecessor in interest, Mohan Lal, contested the aforesaid case denying the right of Narain and consequently respondent nos. 5 and 6 over the disputed plot claiming that they were sole owner of the disputed plot as the same was purchased by Mohan Lal in auction proceedings and subsequently the petitioner purchased the disputed plot from Mohan Lal on the basis of registered sale deed which was executed after approval from the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The respondent no. 4 vide his order dated 27.12.1997 allowed case No. 895/1997-98 and held that Narain and consequently the respondent nos. 5 and 6 had half share in the disputed plot as Narain and Mohan Lal were co-owners of the disputed plot. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 27.12.1997, Mohan Lal filed an appeal before respondent no. 3 under Section 11 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which was registered as appeal No. 84 and the petitioner also filed an appeal which was registered as appeal No. 85. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 27.12.1997, Mohan Lal filed an appeal before respondent no. 3 under Section 11 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which was registered as appeal No. 84 and the petitioner also filed an appeal which was registered as appeal No. 85. The said appeals were dismissed by a common order by respondent no. 3 vide its judgment and order dated 10. 6. 2002. Against the judgment and order dated 10. 6. 2002 passed by respondent no. 3, the petitioner and Mohan Lal filed revisions under Section 48 of the Act before respondent no. 2. The revision filed by the petitioner was numbered as Revision No. 793 and revision field by Mohan Lal was numbered as 794. The respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 10. 4. 2003 dismissed the aforesaid revisions filed by the petitioner and Sri Mohan Lal. 4. Heard the rival submissions of counsel for the parties. 5. In his order dated 27.12.1997, the respondent no. 4 has relied on CH Form 45 issued in the previous consolidation operation held in the village which showed that both Narain and Mohan Lal were co-owners of the disputed plot and had equal share in the same. In the aforesaid order, respondent no. 4 has also recorded the fact that Mohan Lal had not taken any steps to get the name of Narain deleted from the revenue records relating to the disputed plot and no sale certificate regarding the disputed plot was filed by Mohan Lal. Further, while passing the aforesaid order, respondent no. 4 also considered the oral testimony of the witnesses produced by both the parties. Further, a perusal of the order dated 10. 4. 2003 passed by respondent no. 2 would show that from the revenue records of 1359 fasli relating to the disputed plot it was evident that the disputed plot was jointly purchased by Mohan Lal and Narain and they were recorded as co-tenure holders in the revenue records relating to 1375-1377 fasli. From a perusal of record, it is evident that the name of Narain i. e. the predecessor in interest of respondent no. From a perusal of record, it is evident that the name of Narain i. e. the predecessor in interest of respondent no. 5 was recorded in CH Form 45 issued during the previous consolidation operation held in the village and no attempt was ever made by Mohan Lal i.e. the father of the petitioner to get the name of Narain deleted from the revenue records. By virtue of Section 27 (2) of the Act, all entries in the records of rights prepared in accordance with provisions of Section 27 (1) of the Act shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. CH Form 45 is prepared under Rule 97 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 read with Section 27 (1) of the Act. While passing the judgment and order dated 27.12.1997, the respondent no. 4 has considered the documentary as well as oral evidence on record and has held that the petitioner as well as Mohan Lal were not able to prove that they were the sole bhumidhar of the disputed plot and the name of Narain was erroneously or fraudulently recorded in CH Form 45 issued during the previous consolidation operations held in the village. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 have upheld the aforesaid findings. Findings recorded by respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the impugned judgments are based on evidence on record and during the argument, counsel for the petitioner was not able to show any perversity in the aforesaid findings. The said findings are concurrent findings and not liable to be interfered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muneshwar & Ors. vs Raja Mohd. Khan & Ors. , 1998 RevDec 615. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.