Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 670 (ALL)

Surendra Pal v. D. D. C. , Meerut

2020-03-03

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition arises out of an objection under section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, filed by the predecessor in the interest of the petitioners, regarding Plot Nos. 171 and 97 situated in Village Sikhada, Tehsil Kakad, District Baghpat, which in the basic year was recorded in the name of Nahar Singh and Jagat Singh, two brothers. 3. The objector Rati Kaur is admittedly the wife of Nahar Singh and she filed the objection alleging that the name of Jagat Singh was wrongly recorded as she had obtained a registered sale-deed of the aforesaid two plots from Ramdei, its erstwhile owner on 5.5.1975. 4. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 30.5.1991 dismissed the objection. Aggrieved, the objector filed an appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 19.7.1991. The appellate order has been reversed and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer affirmed in revision filed by the respondent No. 3 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 8.12.2000. 5. From perusal of the impugned revisional order, it transpires that revision has been allowed repelling the contention that on the date Rati Kaur executed a sale-deed in favour of Jagat Singh and Nahar Singh, she was not a Bhumidhari, and therefore, she had no right to transfer the land. 6. This argument has been repelled because from the material on record, it was established that Rati Kaur had obtained a Bhumidhari Sanad in the year 1961, prior to the execution of the sale-deed dated 5.5.1962 in favour of Nahar Singh and Jagat Singh. 7. The other ground on which the appeal had been allowed namely that mutation application of Nahar Singh and Jagat Singh had been rejected by the Consolidation Officer in the first round of consolidation operation and the same would bar their claim in view of section 49 of Consolidation of Holdings Act. 8. The above two findings has been reversed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while rejecting the objection and setting aside the appellate order. 9. Before this Court, Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the oral testimony of Ram Dei, appended on page No. 25 of the paper book. 8. The above two findings has been reversed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while rejecting the objection and setting aside the appellate order. 9. Before this Court, Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the oral testimony of Ram Dei, appended on page No. 25 of the paper book. In this statement, she has stated that she had been no intention of executing the sale-deed in favour of Jagat Singh and Nahar Singh and that her thumb impression was obtained thereon, by fraud. 10. Reliance has also been placed upon the last paragraph of the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation of page 68 of the paper book where it has been held that the sale-deed dated 5.5.1962 executed in favour of Jagat Singh etc. was illegal and, therefore, it failed to confer any right, title or interest upon Nahar Singh and Jagat Singh. 11. Sri S.K. Tyagi Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has supported the impugned order. He has submitted that irrespective whatsoever statement has been made by Ram Dei before Consolidation Officer, the facts remains she admitted her thumb impression on the sale-deed executed in favour of Jagat Singh and Nahar Singh. It was her case, in the statement referred to above that this signature or thumb impression had been obtained fraudulently. Under the circumstances, it was necessary for Ram Dei to have sued for cancellation of her sale-deed because on her own showing, the sale-deed was at best, avoidable. 12. In this context, on a categorical query made to Counsel for the petitioner, he has stated that Ram Dei never sued for cancellation of sale-deed executed in favour of Jagat Singh and Nahar Singh. 13. In my considered opinion, since the sale-deed was never challenged before the competent Court, the Consolidation Courts had no jurisdiction to hold that the sale-deed, illegal or that it did not confer any right, title or interest upon its predecessor, as has been done by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. It is also not disputed that Ram Dei had obtained a Bhumidhari Sanad in the year 1961 prior to executing the sale-deed in favour of Nahar Singh and Jagat Singh on 5.5.1962. 14. The other ground which had weighed before Settlement Officer of Consolidation is that after execution of the sale-deed dated 5.5.1962, a mutation application was filed by the purchaser which came to be dismissed. 14. The other ground which had weighed before Settlement Officer of Consolidation is that after execution of the sale-deed dated 5.5.1962, a mutation application was filed by the purchaser which came to be dismissed. This order appears to have been held as barring the claim of Jagat Singh and Nahar Singh to the land in question, in view of section 49 of Consolidation of Holdings Act. 15. In my considered opinion, the order in the mutation case, in the first round consolidation operation would not create a bar provided by section 49 of Consolidation of Holdings Act, for the simple reason that the mutation case was filed prior to the amendment made in section 12 of the Act in the year 1963. Prior to this amendment, the mutation proceedings under section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act did not determine the title of the parties and as were purely summary proceedings. A summary order cannot create the bar provided under section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 16. Moreover, from the discussion above and since the sale-deed executed by Ram Dei in favour of Nahar Singh and Jagat Singh in the year 1962 was never sought to be cancelled by her, the same conferred valid right, title and interest upon purchaser. Therefore, in the year 1975 Ram Dei had no saleable interest left in the land in question, to be transferred by the sale-deed in favour of objector Rati Kaur. The sale-deed of 1975 did not pass any valid title in favour of the petitioners' predecessor, Rati Kaur. 17. In view of what has been stated above, the objection filed by Rati Kaur has rightly been rejected by the impugned revisional order. Moreover, on the basis of submissions made by Counsel for the petitioners, the impugned order is not found to suffer from any illegality, warranting interference. For the same reason, the writ petition is without merit and is dismissed.