Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 957 (ALL)

Shambhoo Nath Misra v. D. D. C. Pratapgarh

2023-04-07

SAURABH LAVANIA

body2023
JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma and Sri Salik Ram Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and Sri Prem Narayan Mishra, Advocate in person, who is the opposite party No. 3 in this petition. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 04.12.2003 passed by the opposite party No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Pratapgarh passed in Revision No. 01 (Jagat Pal v. Ram Garib) and Revision No. 02 (Sheetla Prasad v. Ram Krapal). 3. It is relevant to clarity here that by the order impugned dated 04.12.2003, two revisions were decided. The petition pertaining to revision No. 01 (Jagat Pal v. Ram Garib) has already been finally decided vide order dated 01.09.2020 passed in Consolidation No. 87 of 2004 (Ram Kripal Dubey v. Deputy Director Consolidation Pratapgarh And Others). 4. 3. It is relevant to clarity here that by the order impugned dated 04.12.2003, two revisions were decided. The petition pertaining to revision No. 01 (Jagat Pal v. Ram Garib) has already been finally decided vide order dated 01.09.2020 passed in Consolidation No. 87 of 2004 (Ram Kripal Dubey v. Deputy Director Consolidation Pratapgarh And Others). 4. The entire case in this petition relates to Revision No. 02 filed by Sheetla Prasad, as such, it would be appropriate to quote the relevant portion of the order impugned dated 04.12.2003 including the operative portion of the same, which on reproduction reads as under:- ^^rFkk nwljh fuxjkuh esa fuxjkuhdrkZx.k 'khryk izlkn dh ekax xkVk la[;k&26] 41] 53@3 rFkk 19@2 ls lacaf/kr gS ftlds laca/k esa i=koyh ij miyC/k [kljk cankscLr vOoy] [krkSuh] udy [kljk cankscLr nks;e] lks;e ds ns[kus ls irk pyrk gS fd xkVk la0 26 nks;e dk 31 uacj rFkk nks;e 31 cankscLr vOoy dk 13 uacj gS blh izdkj xkVk la[;k&41 cankscLr nks;e dk 46 vOOky dk 19@2 uacj gS ;g nksuksa uacj [kqndk'r v;ks/;k vkfn ds uke ds lkFk fuxjkuhdrkZ ds iwoZtksa fcank o jke v/khu ds uke ntZ gS ftlds vk/kkj ij bu nksuksa uacjksa esa fuxjkuhdrkZ dk vkifRr ds vuqlkj 1@2 va'k fl) gS Qyr% mijksDrkuqlkj fuxjkuh Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k mijksDr foospuk ds vuqlkj mijksDr nksuksa fuxjkfu;ka Lohdkj dh tkrh gSa rFkk lgk;d cankscLr vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 24-12-74 fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk fo}ku pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 26-02-73 esa vkaf'kd la'kks/ku djrs gq;s xkVk la[;k&13@2&14&14 ij ls jkey[ku iq= jke xjhc] ekrk cny iq= jke cks/k] jktkjke iq= jkeyky] jktho o latho iq= jke dju] jktsUnz izlkn iq= jke [ksykou] jke vatksj iq= f'kcju] jke d`iky] jke nso] jke lthou iq= jke pju uUgwd nq[kh f'koizlkn iq= iqnu dk uke [kkfjt djds muds LFkku ij txr iky ckngw lqjsUnz ukFk] 'khryk izlkn ckngw jke vdcky o isze ujk;.k iq= 'khryk izlkn rFkk jsLikUMsV 11&31 ds uke vk/kkj o"kZ dh [kkrk la[;k&15 esa iwoZor ntZ gks] rFkk xkVk la[;k& 26] 41 o 53 ij fyf[kr [kkrsnkj ds lkFk 'khrykizlkn ckngw jke vdcky o izse ujk;.k iq= 'khryk izlkn dk uke crkSj lg [kkrsnkj ntZ gksA i=koyh ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh nkf[ky nWQ~rj gksA** 5. Assailing the impugned order dated 04.12.2003, Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma and Sri Salik Ram Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the predecessor in interest of the opposite parties/Sheetla Prasad as also the present opposite parties to this petition was/are entitled to Gata No. 26 area 4 Viswa, 17 Viswanshi and Gata No. 41 area 3 Viswa, 2 Viswanshi, in issue, situated at Village- Siyara Basi, Pargana and Tehsil- Patti, District- Pratapgarh, however, the opposite parties are not entitled to any share over the Gata No. 53/3/2 (wrongly indicated as 53/3 in the impugned order) area 1 Viswa, 10 Viswanshi and Gata No. 92/2 (wrongly indicated as 19/2 in the impugned order) area 2 Viswa, 7 Viswanshi. 6. Further submission is that in regard to Gata No. 26 and 41, the respondent No. 1 after considering the relevant pleadings and material evidence on record specifically observed that Sheetla Prasad is entitled to these Gatas and regarding Gata No. 53/3/2, there is no finding/observation in the order impugned, however, in the operative portion, the respondent No. 1 has observed that Sheetla Prasad, predecessor in interest of the opposite parties, is entitled to Gata No. 53/3/2. This direction is liable to interfered with as the same is without any finding and reasoning. It is further submitted that regarding Gata No. 92/2, the claim of Sheetla Prasad, predecessor in interest of the opposite parties, was not acceded by the Consolidation Officer. 7. Per contra, it is stated that from the operative portion of the impugned order, it is apparent that the respondent No. 1 has held that Sheetla Prasad, predecessor in interest of the opposite parties, is entitled to share in Gata No. 53/3/2, however, it is fairly stated that there is no observation or finding in the order impugned dated 04.12.2003 in this regard. 8. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Admittedly, the petitioners are not opposing the rights of Sheetla Prasad, predecessor in interest of the opposite parties, and present opposite parties in this petition over Gata No. 26 and 41. Admittedly, there is no finding in the order impugned dated 04.12.2003 with regard to entitlement of Sheetla Prasad, predecessor in interest of the opposite parties, over Gata No. 53/3/2. Admittedly, the petitioners are not opposing the rights of Sheetla Prasad, predecessor in interest of the opposite parties, and present opposite parties in this petition over Gata No. 26 and 41. Admittedly, there is no finding in the order impugned dated 04.12.2003 with regard to entitlement of Sheetla Prasad, predecessor in interest of the opposite parties, over Gata No. 53/3/2. However, in the operative portion of the impugned order dated 04.12.2003, the respondent No. 1 has directed to include the name of Sheetla Prasad in records related to Gata No. 53/3/2. This direction to the view of this Court is unsustainable, as there should be a specific finding regarding entitlement of share over Gata No. 53/3/2, which is admittedly not there in the order impugned dated 04.12.2003. 10. In view of above, the present petition is liable to be party allowed so far as it relates to rights of Sheetla Prasad, predecessor in interest of the opposite parties and present opposite parties of this petition, regarding Gata No. 53/3/2. 11. The petition is thus partly allowed. The order impugned dated 04.12.2003 is modified to the extent that the private opposite parties would not be entitled to share over Gata No. 53/3/2. However, they would be entitled to their share over Gata No. 26 and 41 as per the order passed by the respondent No. 1 dated 04.12.2003.